Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Harr files Habeas corpus for Mangum


257 comments:

1 – 200 of 257   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Just getting started reading the petition for Habeas Corpus. It is a rehash of SIDNEY's delusions, that because he calls it perjury on the part of Dr. Nichols it was perjury. It is another iteration of SIDNEY's delusion that he is above the law, that he is a law unto himself. It will mean nothing to the court.

Anonymous said...

And it seems SIDNEY has given up on his latest screed about corrupt DA NIFONG. Maybe he read about Daryl Howard, about the innocence project calling for an audit of DA NIFONG's cases and fears that corruption on the part of NIFONG is more extensive than anyone realizes.

Anonymous said...

After looking at SIDNEY's exhibits, it is obvious he mentions nothing new, only that he does not believe the charges against Crystal are true and should be dismissed.

He lists no real solid legal ground for the court to grant a writ of habeas corpus.

Is he practicing law without a license again?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
And it seems SIDNEY has given up on his latest screed about corrupt DA NIFONG. Maybe he read about Daryl Howard, about the innocence project calling for an audit of DA NIFONG's cases and fears that corruption on the part of NIFONG is more extensive than anyone realizes.


My faith and confidence in Mike Nifong has not wavered a nanometer. Unfortunately since I am a human being, I cannot accomplish everything in all spheres at the same time. I concentrate on Mangum at present because she is currently incarcerated. When I find the time, I will address the Darryl Howard case. I still haven't completed the sharlog that I had planned to produce... instead, I took time from it to file the habeas corpus.

So don't worry, I remain a devout fan and friend of Mike Nifong.

Lance the Intern said...

Sid....You've gotten in trouble with the state bar once already for filing motions for Crystal Mangum. You even agreed to refrain from “preparing or assisting in the preparation of court pleadings or other legal documents for others...”

I'm afraid your work here may do more to hurt you than it will to help Crystal Mangum.

A Lawyer said...

I wonder if this is a violation of the injunction which the State Bar obtained against Dr. Harr prohibiting him from practicing law without a license.

Anonymous said...

Nothing "history shaping" here. Unless you consider that Sid's filing on behalf of CGM may be the action that leads ultimately to Sid's incarceration and the end of this blog.

Walt said...

Lance and A Lawyer bring up good points. Of course, the central truth here is, with friends like Sid, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Practicing law without a license again. I assume you will once again show your legal prowess in prevailing against the State Bar?

You really do want to do all you can to hurt Crystal. It's sad, but you are good at doing it. The last thing you want is her freedom, you are clearly upset she didn't get LWOP and you want to jeopardize her appeal so you can keep your martyr.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"My faith and confidence in Mike Nifong has not wavered a nanometer."

It could have wavered several kilometers and you still say it hasn't wavered a nanometer.

"Unfortunately since I am a human being, I cannot accomplish everything in all spheres at the same time."

Some human beings have accomplished great things, like Brad Bannon teaching himself about DNA and then figuring out that DNA Security found evidence which exonerated the Lacrosse players, which evidence had been concealed by corrupt DA NIFONG. You, however, have accomplished nothing and you are too dense to realize it.

"I concentrate on Mangum at present because she is currently incarcerated."

Correction: she is justly incarcerated. Did you ever read that Habeas Corpus applies to people who were unjustly incarcerated.

"When I find the time, I will address the Darryl Howard case."

That is doubtful since you were informed about Darryl Howard weeks ago and you were in denial about it, and about DA NIFONG's role in it.

"I still haven't completed the sharlog that I had planned to produce... instead, I took time from it to file the habeas corpus.'

Before this, your story was you were having technical difficulties producing the Sharlog. It seems your most recent motion is something to excuse your failure with your sharlog.

"So don't worry, I remain a devout fan and friend of Mike Nifong."

Which means you are a devout fan and friend of gross prosecutorial misconduct.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous July 29, 2014 at 9:39 AM

"Nothing "history shaping" here. Unless you consider that Sid's filing on behalf of CGM may be the action that leads ultimately to Sid's incarceration and the end of this blog."

Maybe SIDNEY has found out the truth about DA NIFONG and found it impossible to complete a sharlog to support the corrupt DA and he is looking for any way out, honorable or otherwise.

Walt said...

I have a more comprehensive post about Sid's misplaced attempt at my blog. You can read it at: http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2014/07/habeas-corpus.html

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

Good job!

I'm no lawyer either, but it seems habeous corpus can be submitted by anyone, so it is safe to assume that you are an anyone who could file one.

I am surprised that one of the jurors is the wife of a Duke surgeon. That is seriously unreasonable to allow that by Mr. Meir, as is his representing Ms. Mangum at all due to his many conflicts-of-interest to all the issues presented in this case.

I hope it works. If not, another can be filed by someone else at a different court level if needed from what I understand about Habeous Corpus at this time. Is that correct?

Anonymous said...

Sid is subject to an order from the Wake Superior Court to refrain from practicing law.

By submitting the writ on behalf of Crystal Mangum, he is practicing law, and therefore in violation of the court order.

But feel free to submit your own -- I'm betting Sid will even help you put together your own document.

Oops -- that would be considered practicing law as well.....

Lance the Intern said...

"I'm no lawyer either...

You should've just stopped right there.

Anonymous said...

Anyone can submit a Habeous Corpus, and no-one has to refrain from doing so unless in a national emergency as degreed by the President.

Anonymous said...

Anonynous July 29, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Please provide corroboration for your claim regarding the Jury which tried Crystal, a link to a news story or something simiar.

If you can not it would suggest you are fabrication.

Anonymous said...

Is the name of a juror public knowledge?

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure that only convicts or lawyers on behalf of the convict can file for habeas corpus. Sid is neither.

I'm willing to be corrected here, though...but only by an actual legal professional -- Walt or A Lawyer.

Anonymous said...

due to his many conflicts-of-interest to all the issues presented in this case.



Name 1 conflict of interest. Sid has repeatedly stated there was a conflict of interest with Meier, but other than pointing to the fact he worked for a for-profit healthcare company in Texas 15+ years ago, he has never cited any actual conflict. You now claim there are "many" - please identify just a few.

Anonymous said...

no

go read something about it yourself why don't you (for a change)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous July 29, 2014 at 1:36 PM

"no

go read something about it yourself why don't you (for a change)"

There is nothing about it except what you said about it in your comment, which makes me think you are fabricating.

RTruth said...

Sid's document does argue that the
trial court made legal errors that prevented Crystal Mangum from receiving a fair trial.

Unfortunately for Sid, that's the purpose of the appellate process. The appeal is intended to challenge a
lower court’s legal decision, habeas corpus challenges the constitutionality of one’s confinement.

Habeas corpus petitions must raise constitutional questions -- This document does not.

guiowen said...

Actually, I think Sid does well to exhaust all possibilities. What can they do to him? Send him to bed without supper?
The upside of it is that, after Sid has exhausted all possibilities, maybe he'll see the light and stop complicating Crystal's life.

Anonymous said...

I've read the blog, and Sid's Habeau - the ONLY conflict he identifies for Meier is that he worked for HCA over 15 years ago. He never explains why working for a company that used to be in competition with Duke (though barely, and sold Duke Durham Regional), that had close to 400 hospitals, and working at hospitals in Texas - never anywhere close to NC - creates a conflict.

I'm just curious. He keeps citing that, but can't explain why it's a conflict, and you claim "multiple" - can you identify a few?

I mean, Sid did try the "he went to UNC" but that hurts his argument about a positive feeling towards Duke, so he abandoned it.

I do love how tinfoil hat throws out allegations, like Sid, with no back-up, or evidence, and then when he gets called on it calls everyone a troll and runs and cries in his soup.

I really hope your life isn't nearly as sad, lonely, and paranoid as your postings make it seem.

Anonymous said...

You act like you are a judge or jury or something and this is a court instead of a blog, and others are required to play your games with no objection or question. Plus, what ya'll do is highly abusive to EVERYONE, including yourselves. You insult normal intelligence with your it like behavior and questions that merely demonstrate how little you think for yourselves or about others. NO-ONE has to put up with your bs obviously, as it is all it is. Give one reason why anyone should have to put up with what ya'll trolls do to harm others?

No-one has to harm others because ya'll insist on harming others and make games out of doing so repeatedly, for your own entertainment and benefit or reason or threat to harm further. Get real. Ya'll are so abusive and unjust the only thing any one can say to you is ya'll are so abusive and unjust and to stop or whatever.

Anonymous said...

Kenny in the passenger seat, our anonymous poster in the back...see it here,

Anonymous said...

there is no 'our' here

you do not own this blog

troll

Anonymous said...

You act like a slave owner still ... that's another thing. Why is that?

Anonymous said...

You are Anonymous. I am Anonymous. You are ours. We are yours. We are Anonymous. We are Legion.



Anonymous said...

maybe you are

if that's what you want to be

this is NC

afterall

you can be what you want to be

that is 'our' motto

Anonymous said...

Everyone knows that tinfoil hat is really Victoria "God hates Fags" Peterson.


Anonymous said...

So now you want to target hate at Ms. Peterson (whom I if you are referring to me as tinfoil hat like you usually do) am not?

Hate Criminal is what you are - you know that don't you - that's all you have been that i've seen - and everyone, actually, has told you to stop.

Anonymous said...

Victoria "Tinfoil Hat" Peterson - Everyone knows you're a homo-bigot, too busy accusing others of "hate crimes" to see your own.

I bet Fred Phelps is your hero.

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Intern said...
Sid....You've gotten in trouble with the state bar once already for filing motions for Crystal Mangum. You even agreed to refrain from “preparing or assisting in the preparation of court pleadings or other legal documents for others...”

I'm afraid your work here may do more to hurt you than it will to help Crystal Mangum.


Hey, Lance. Not to worry. Statute 17-5 gives a third party the right to file a habeas corpus petition.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous A Lawyer said...
I wonder if this is a violation of the injunction which the State Bar obtained against Dr. Harr prohibiting him from practicing law without a license.


Hey, A Lawyer.

That injunction doesn't apply here as filing a habeas corpus as a third party is protected by NC law.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Lance and A Lawyer bring up good points. Of course, the central truth here is, with friends like Sid, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham


Hey, Walt.

You know that my right to file a habeas corpus on behalf of Crystal is protected.

All I can say is that I am at least doing something for Crystal. Can you tell me what her attorney has done for her?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Practicing law without a license again. I assume you will once again show your legal prowess in prevailing against the State Bar?

You really do want to do all you can to hurt Crystal. It's sad, but you are good at doing it. The last thing you want is her freedom, you are clearly upset she didn't get LWOP and you want to jeopardize her appeal so you can keep your martyr.


Hard as I try, I have failed to comprehend any logic in your comment. To Crystal, I am a Godsend.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
I have a more comprehensive post about Sid's misplaced attempt at my blog. You can read it at: http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2014/07/habeas-corpus.html

Walt-in-Durham


I'll check it out before my time expires at the library computer. Walt, let me know if you'd like a link on my blog site to your blog site.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Good job!

I'm no lawyer either, but it seems habeous corpus can be submitted by anyone, so it is safe to assume that you are an anyone who could file one.

I am surprised that one of the jurors is the wife of a Duke surgeon. That is seriously unreasonable to allow that by Mr. Meir, as is his representing Ms. Mangum at all due to his many conflicts-of-interest to all the issues presented in this case.

I hope it works. If not, another can be filed by someone else at a different court level if needed from what I understand about Habeous Corpus at this time. Is that correct?


Thanks for the supportive and kind words. With regards to jury selection, I found that out by going over the transcripts. The wife of the surgeon seemed to say whatever she could to be chosen for the jury.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Anonynous July 29, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Please provide corroboration for your claim regarding the Jury which tried Crystal, a link to a news story or something simiar.

If you can not it would suggest you are fabrication.


The transcripts of the trial contains everything, including jury selection... that is everything except conversations at the bench or in judge's chambers. The name of the juror and her husband are on record in the transcript.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Actually, I think Sid does well to exhaust all possibilities. What can they do to him? Send him to bed without supper?
The upside of it is that, after Sid has exhausted all possibilities, maybe he'll see the light and stop complicating Crystal's life.


Hey, gui.

I do plan on exhausting all possibilities, and then some. I'm curious though... how am I complicating Crystal's life?

Lance the Intern said...

"Hey, Lance. Not to worry. Statute 17-5 gives a third party the right to file a habeas corpus petition."

For your sake,Sid, I hope you're right.

Did you happen to read the comment from the "RTruth" poster regarding the use of the habeas corpus petition? I'd like to read your response to that.

Anonymous said...

Are you going to post the trial transcripts? These aren't readily available online.

guiowen said...

Nifong Supporter said...


"Hey, gui.

I do plan on exhausting all possibilities, and then some. I'm curious though... how am I complicating Crystal's life?"

Maybe if you hadn't discouraged her from copping a plea bargain, and hadn't encouraged her to get rid of all her attorneys, she'd be out now or in at most two years. Instead she's in for another eleven years.

Anonymous said...

No, tinfoil hat, you are right - this is a blog, not Court, and you don't have to provide answers, but if you don't want to come across like a babbling idiot, it's usually best to actually provide evidence for your allegations. Just saying something doesn't make it true, and just repeating it and calling someone a troll if they ask you for proof just makes you look stupid.

Purportedly the purpose of this blog is to educate and convince people Sid knows what he's doing, but that cannot happen if he (or his supporters) refuse to actually back up anything they say.

If all you do is rant and rage, you are no different than the loon on the street corner screaming the end is neigh!

It must be difficult and sad to have so little ability to think, and so little self-confidence, that you can't support what you say, you just spout off your paranoia and run back under your rock and hide.

Walt said...

As usual, Sid is incomplete in his legal research. "Hey, Lance. Not to worry. Statute 17-5 gives a third party the right to file a habeas corpus petition." and "Hey, A Lawyer. That injunction doesn't apply here as filing a habeas corpus as a third party is protected by NC law."

The operative statute: NCGS § 17-5. By whom application is made
Application for the writ may be made either by the party for whose relief it is intended or by any person in his behalf.

It's the last three words that get Sid in trouble. "in his behalf." Practicing law is acting "in his behalf." There is the problem. This section does not protect Sid as he is prohibited directly from acting on someone's behalf. The protection of Habeas Corpus is not for Sid, but for Crystal. Of course Sid is so self-centered, he thinks the statute applies to him. Look for another visit to the bar.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

" Can you tell me what [Crystal's] attorney has done for her?'

He defended her. He might have been successful had you not stuck your deluded ignorant megalomaniacal nose into her case.

This Habeas Corpus thing is no attempt to help Crystal. You filed it as a excuse for your failure to come up with your latest promised sharlog.

Anonymous said...

Does Crystal even know you are still interfering in her case?

Break the Conspiracy said...

Most readers do not understand Sidney's genius.

Sidney does not expect a court to grant relief directly. That is not his motivation.

Sidney realizes how effectively the defense attorneys in the lacrosse case made evidence public through filings. A court did not hear the motions. Public pressure forced action.

Similarly, Sidney files motions to attract media attention. The biased media suppresses information due to Mangum's role in the lacrosse case. They do not grant interviews. They do not investigate.

However, they will cover his filings, particularly if they can use them to cast dispersions on his character. Sidney realizes that filing a motion and posting it on this blog is insufficient. In the near future, he will send his filing to the media and others.

Most importantly, he will send it to the Bar, goading them to charge him again with unlawfully practicing law. If they foolishly take the bait, Sidney will have his day in court, where he will once again allege conspiracy, perjury and fraud and raise the possibility of murder at Duke.

The media will relish this riveting spectacle.

Guiowen, Sidney will risk being sent to bed without supper. He is fighting for Lady Justice!

Anonymous said...

STDNEY HARR:

"The name of the juror and her husband are on record in the transcript."

Why don't you publish the name of the Duke Surgeon?

You are going to argue that someone was trying to cover up Duke's malpractice. Only you have not demonstrated any malpractice. As a minimally trained, minimally experienced person who has an MD degree still inappropriately appended to your name you are incapable of identifying malpractice. Say Reginald Daye's family did sue and their attorney put you on the stand as an expert witness, that would guarantee a summary judgment for the defendant.

You are probably the anonymous tin foil had poster, posting anonymously to create an impression that someone supports you.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The wife of the surgeon seemed to say whatever she could to be chosen for the jury."

Why don't you publish what she said so we can decide for ourselves. Or are you afraid?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"To Crystal, I am a Godsend."

Any god who would send you to anyone would be a false god.

guiowen said...

Sidney,
Can't you just leave the poor benighted woman alone?

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
As usual, Sid is incomplete in his legal research. "Hey, Lance. Not to worry. Statute 17-5 gives a third party the right to file a habeas corpus petition." and "Hey, A Lawyer. That injunction doesn't apply here as filing a habeas corpus as a third party is protected by NC law."

The operative statute: NCGS § 17-5. By whom application is made
Application for the writ may be made either by the party for whose relief it is intended or by any person in his behalf.

It's the last three words that get Sid in trouble. "in his behalf." Practicing law is acting "in his behalf." There is the problem. This section does not protect Sid as he is prohibited directly from acting on someone's behalf. The protection of Habeas Corpus is not for Sid, but for Crystal. Of course Sid is so self-centered, he thinks the statute applies to him. Look for another visit to the bar.

Walt-in-Durham


Walt, if that's what the statute meant it would've said: "... or by any lawyer in his behalf." It doesn't say that. It specifically says, "any person." I am a person, ergo my right to file a habeas corpus is protected.

Comprende?

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Intern said...
"Hey, Lance. Not to worry. Statute 17-5 gives a third party the right to file a habeas corpus petition."

For your sake,Sid, I hope you're right.

Did you happen to read the comment from the "RTruth" poster regarding the use of the habeas corpus petition? I'd like to read your response to that.


RTruth said...
Sid's document does argue that the
trial court made legal errors that prevented Crystal Mangum from receiving a fair trial.

Unfortunately for Sid, that's the purpose of the appellate process. The appeal is intended to challenge a
lower court’s legal decision, habeas corpus challenges the constitutionality of one’s confinement.

Habeas corpus petitions must raise constitutional questions -- This document does not.

Hey, Lance.

In my habeas corpus filing I believe I did mention several times about Mangum's constitutional rights being violated... in particular the Fourteenth Amendment. I think that the habeas corpus will past muster with regards to constitutionality necessary for the Court of Appeals to take action.


Anonymous said...

Walt's the lawyer here, Sid. Anyone with common sense knows that, of the two interpretations of NCGS § 17-5, his is the correct one.

Anonymous said...

Sid is wrong again, but he won't admit it, and will just have fun fighting the State Bar (if he actually filed the Writ).

Does Crystal know you filed it?

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Sidney,
Can't you just leave the poor benighted woman alone?


gui, mon ami.

So you think I should leave the poor woman alone so that she can serve the remainder of her eighteen year sentence?

My efforts, if successful, will result in her release all the much sooner. As they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Anonymous said...

In my habeas corpus filing I believe I did mention several times about Mangum's constitutional rights being violated... in particular the Fourteenth Amendment. I think that the habeas corpus will past muster with regards to constitutionality necessary for the Court of Appeals to take action



In all your lawsuits, and all your filings, and all your proclamations about the law, have you ever been right? This is just another of your empty promises/guarantees, which will very shortly be exposed as wrong, and you will just blame the vast Duke conspiracy.

But, seriously, when have you been right on anything you've filed? Have you ever had a court actually rule in your favor on anything?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid is wrong again, but he won't admit it, and will just have fun fighting the State Bar (if he actually filed the Writ).

Does Crystal know you filed it?


I don't know whether on not Crystal knows that I filed the habeas corpus on her behalf. I did not notify her before hand that I was going to do it.

Far as the State Bar goes, I do not anticipate the Bar getting involved in this matter.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Walt, if that's what the statute meant it would've said: "... or by any lawyer in his behalf." It doesn't say that. It specifically says, "any person." I am a person, ergo my right to file a habeas corpus is protected.

But you have no right to represent anyone else.

"Comprende?"

Walt does.You don't.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Break the Conspiracy said...
Most readers do not understand Sidney's genius.

Sidney does not expect a court to grant relief directly. That is not his motivation.

Sidney realizes how effectively the defense attorneys in the lacrosse case made evidence public through filings. A court did not hear the motions. Public pressure forced action.

Similarly, Sidney files motions to attract media attention. The biased media suppresses information due to Mangum's role in the lacrosse case. They do not grant interviews. They do not investigate.

However, they will cover his filings, particularly if they can use them to cast dispersions on his character. Sidney realizes that filing a motion and posting it on this blog is insufficient. In the near future, he will send his filing to the media and others.

Most importantly, he will send it to the Bar, goading them to charge him again with unlawfully practicing law. If they foolishly take the bait, Sidney will have his day in court, where he will once again allege conspiracy, perjury and fraud and raise the possibility of murder at Duke.

The media will relish this riveting spectacle.

Guiowen, Sidney will risk being sent to bed without supper. He is fighting for Lady Justice!


Hey, Break. Good to hear from you.

You've got me figured out pretty much, however, I'm hoping that the appeals court will take some action. It might be more desperation than anything as I know that the media will fight me hard to keep the filing out of the press and keep it hidden from the public.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
STDNEY HARR:

"The name of the juror and her husband are on record in the transcript."

Why don't you publish the name of the Duke Surgeon?

You are going to argue that someone was trying to cover up Duke's malpractice. Only you have not demonstrated any malpractice. As a minimally trained, minimally experienced person who has an MD degree still inappropriately appended to your name you are incapable of identifying malpractice. Say Reginald Daye's family did sue and their attorney put you on the stand as an expert witness, that would guarantee a summary judgment for the defendant.

You are probably the anonymous tin foil had poster, posting anonymously to create an impression that someone supports you.


I have no problem with publishing the name of the juror... it's just that I've been busy working on my next sharlog. When I do print it, I'll include a large portion of her interview during the jury selection process.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Lance.

In my habeas corpus filing I believe I did mention several times about Mangum's constitutional rights being violated... in particular the Fourteenth Amendment."

No you haven't. You have made uncorroborated allegations, which is your customary way of practicing law without a license.

"I think that the habeas corpus will past muster with regards to constitutionality necessary for the Court of Appeals to take action."

Yeah, and you thought that the state would dismiss the charges and never take Crystal to trial and that you would humiliate the state bar. Your thinking is mostly wishful thinking, which is another aspect of the way you practice law without a license.

Anonymous said...

I don't know whether on not Crystal knows that I filed the habeas corpus on her behalf. I did not notify her before hand that I was going to do it.


So you are messing with her life, interfering in her appeal, jeopardizing her appeal, all without contacting her and making sure she was okay with it?

I used to think you were just an egomaniacal narcissist, now I realize you are unethical as well.

Anyone who supports your interference WITHOUT permission is an even bigger idiot than I would have guessed.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

I was wondering about how she is. How is she recovering? If you make a visit to inform her of the Habeas corpus filing with copies of the formal filing I am sure that would be beneficial to her and her family. Let her know others wish her wellness.

If you do visit, please just let us know the most basic of medical information at this time as to her well-being, if at all, as the trolls have an abusive field day with everything you say about her. Therefore it is not advisable to do so, as the mental and emotional health of all who may be affected by the continued abuse is something worth considering in favorable and responsible manners.

In addition Dr. Harr, what are the laws concerning jury names and privacy rights, safety concerns, etc. and the same consideration for emotional and mental abuse? Do you know? You may want to take a moment to consider it before posting just to feed the trolls.

I agree with you, obviously, that the law does not specify that only lawyers can file a Habeas corpus, or that one has to be a lawyer in order to file one. Perhaps Ms. Mangum will file her own with any additional complaints she may have, and with law and constitutional references and such added for good measure.

Thank you for the work on her behalf. Please let us know how she is and wish her well for all of us.



Anonymous said...

I agree with you, obviously, that the law does not specify that only lawyers can file a Habeas corpus, or that one has to be a lawyer in order to file one. Perhaps Ms. Mangum will file her own with any additional complaints she may have, and with law and constitutional references and such added for good measure.



Or, perhaps Mangum is sick and tired of Sid and other people poking their nose in her business and she is working with her appellate attorney and doesn't welcome the intrusion and wishes the rest of you would stay out of her business and stop interferring.

It's telling that Sid is no longer telling Crystal what he plans to do. She had asked him to stop before, and refused to communicate with him. I bet she told him to stay out, but he doesn't care, this isn't about her, it's about him, it has always been about him.

Anonymous said...

Actually, it is about her and justice in NC but not about you, but you do not see that do you?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Actually, it is about her and justice in NC but not about you, but you do not see that do you?



The only one who has ever said it was about them is Sid. If it really is about her, wouldn't/shouldn't Sid have talked to her and explain what he was doing on her behalf, or planning to do, and make sure she wanted him to do it?

Instead, he refused to ask her, or he did and she said no, and he won't say that, likely because he was afraid she'd say to stay out of it.

If it were about her, she should have had some say in it. Sid, by his own admission, has kept Crystal completely in the dark about this effort.

Anonymous said...

The Habeas Corpus law probably does not state that the person being imprisoned wrongfully has to give permission for a writ to be filed by anyone about any case.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I don't know whether on not Crystal knows that I filed the habeas corpus on her behalf. I did not notify her before hand that I was going to do it."

Since you did not notify Crystal and since you have no legal standing in the case, I doubt you have any right or authority to do what you did, regardless of how you may interpret the statute.

"Far as the State Bar goes, I do not anticipate the Bar getting involved in this matter."

However a few years ago, you did anticipate you would humiliate the state bar with your "brilliance". 'Nuf said about your ability to anticipate.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Break. Good to hear from you.

You've got me figured out pretty much, however, I'm hoping that the appeals court will take some action. It might be more desperation than anything as I know that the media will fight me hard to keep the filing out of the press and keep it hidden from the public."

You have an interesting way to point out that the media do not take you seriously. That's what really bothers you, isn't it? It's not the fate of Crystal at all.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous July 31, 2014 at 11:04 AM:

You are truly deluded if you think SIDNEY, the minimally trained, minimally experienced person with an MD inappropriately attached to his name will be able to tell you anything meaningful about anyone's medical condition.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I have no problem with publishing the name of the juror... it's just that I've been busy working on my next sharlog. When I do print it, I'll include a large portion of her interview during the jury selection process."

Which is really a way for you to say you are having problems publishing the name of the juror.

Remember you published that Reginald Daye had been charged with assaulting a woman, trying to conceal that this was about 10 years before Crystal killed him and that the charge was dropped.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"gui, mon ami.

"So you think I should leave the poor woman alone so that she can serve the remainder of her eighteen year sentence?"

The only reason "the poor woman" is serving a minimum 14 year sentence for Murder 2 is that you refused to leave her alone.

"My efforts, if successful, will result in her release all the much sooner. As they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained."

When have your efforts ever been successful?

Anonymous said...

Sid is about to get rochambeaued by Lady Justice.

Anonymous said...

Already denied? That was quick.

Anonymous said...






W
h
e
r
e

i
s

k
e
n
n
y
?




Anonymous said...






A

s
a
r
c
a
s
t
i
c

m
a
n

i
s

a

w
o
u
n
d
e
d

m
a
n




Anonymous said...

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved.
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come;
'Tis grace has brought me safe thus far
And grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promised good to me
His word my hope secures;
He will my shield and portion be,
As long as life endures.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

When we've been there ten thousand years
Bright shining as the sun,
We've no less days to sing God's praise
Than when we've first begun.

Anonymous said...



Breakin' rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I needed the money 'cause I had none
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

I was wondering about how she is. How is she recovering? If you make a visit to inform her of the Habeas corpus filing with copies of the formal filing I am sure that would be beneficial to her and her family. Let her know others wish her wellness.

If you do visit, please just let us know the most basic of medical information at this time as to her well-being, if at all, as the trolls have an abusive field day with everything you say about her. Therefore it is not advisable to do so, as the mental and emotional health of all who may be affected by the continued abuse is something worth considering in favorable and responsible manners.

In addition Dr. Harr, what are the laws concerning jury names and privacy rights, safety concerns, etc. and the same consideration for emotional and mental abuse? Do you know? You may want to take a moment to consider it before posting just to feed the trolls.

I agree with you, obviously, that the law does not specify that only lawyers can file a Habeas corpus, or that one has to be a lawyer in order to file one. Perhaps Ms. Mangum will file her own with any additional complaints she may have, and with law and constitutional references and such added for good measure.

Thank you for the work on her behalf. Please let us know how she is and wish her well for all of us.


Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

It has been some time since I've heard from Crystal. The last phone call from her was about three months ago, and the last letter I wrote to her was more than a month ago. I included a self-addressed stamped envelope, but have not received a reply. So, either she did not receive it or does not want to contact me.

Health-wise I assume that she's doing okay and is not having any problems related to the bowel obstruction.

I tried to get visitation to see her, but it was denied because I have visitation with death row inmate Shan Carter.

I've considered privacy issues of the jurors, but in order to expose the misdeeds and malfeasances of turncoat attorney Daniel Meier, it will be necessary to make the names of a couple of jurors public in order to give credibility to my claims. I don't anticipate how it might be a cause of embarrassment. Thanks for your concern.

I brought before Mangum the suggestion of filing a habeas corpus petition but she did not seem to take interest in it. Besides, I would imagine it is difficult to put together a petition while incarcerated.

Finally, I just now received a letter from the Court of Appeals stating that my petition has been denied. I will present more about this in the future.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...

Actually, it is about her and justice in NC but not about you, but you do not see that do you?



The only one who has ever said it was about them is Sid. If it really is about her, wouldn't/shouldn't Sid have talked to her and explain what he was doing on her behalf, or planning to do, and make sure she wanted him to do it?

Instead, he refused to ask her, or he did and she said no, and he won't say that, likely because he was afraid she'd say to stay out of it.

If it were about her, she should have had some say in it. Sid, by his own admission, has kept Crystal completely in the dark about this effort.


As I previously stated, the last time I wrote Crystal I enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope so that she could write me back. I have not heard from her. I don't know whether or not she is getting all of her mail, or if all of her mail is being sent out. And, I don't know how much of her mail is being monitored or read by staff... therefore, I'm not inclined to go too far in expressing future plans or strategies.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
The Habeas Corpus law probably does not state that the person being imprisoned wrongfully has to give permission for a writ to be filed by anyone about any case.


Right! That's my thinking also... that consent is not required by the effected party for a third party to file a habeas corpus.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anonymous July 31, 2014 at 11:04 AM:

You are truly deluded if you think SIDNEY, the minimally trained, minimally experienced person with an MD inappropriately attached to his name will be able to tell you anything meaningful about anyone's medical condition.


Answer me this... was Daye's spleen removed during emergency surgery on April 3, 2011?

Anonymous said...

Well, that didn't take long. When are you going to post the letter from the appeals court? We need a date....

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Thank you for your thoughtful comment."

What thoughtful comment? The commenter thinks as well as you do, meaning not at all.

"It has been some time since I've heard from Crystal. The last phone call from her was about three months ago, and the last letter I wrote to her was more than a month ago. I included a self-addressed stamped envelope, but have not received a reply. So, either she did not receive it or does not want to contact me."

Most likely she has come to her senses and it is the latter.

"Health-wise I assume that she's doing okay and is not having any problems related to the bowel obstruction."

You have provided no medical evidence that Crystal was ever treated for a bowel obstruction. One reason why she might not want to see you is she has fabricated the story and does not want anyone to know she has no evidence she was ever treated for a bowel obstruction.

"I tried to get visitation to see her, but it was denied because I have visitation with death row inmate Shan Carter."

So do you plan to post more lies about felony murderer Shan Carter?

"I've considered privacy issues of the jurors, but in order to expose the misdeeds and malfeasances of turncoat attorney Daniel Meier, it will be necessary to make the names of a couple of jurors public in order to give credibility to my claims. I don't anticipate how it might be a cause of embarrassment. Thanks for your concern."

There were no misdeeds on the part of Daniel Meier. Your proclamation of his misdeeds has no weight, legal or otherwise.

"I brought before Mangum the suggestion of filing a habeas corpus petition but she did not seem to take interest in it. Besides, I would imagine it is difficult to put together a petition while incarcerated."

Hey, other inmates have successfully sued the government while incarcerated. Surely an honors graduate of NCCU should have some knowledge of how to file a request for habeas corpus, provided the prison has a library.

"Finally, I just now received a letter from the Court of Appeals stating that my petition has been denied."

And you are not surprised by that?

"I will present more about this in the future."

More distortions and lies, you mean.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"As I previously stated, the last time I wrote Crystal I enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope so that she could write me back. I have not heard from her. I don't know whether or not she is getting all of her mail, or if all of her mail is being sent out. And, I don't know how much of her mail is being monitored or read by staff... therefore, I'm not inclined to go too far in expressing future plans or strategies."

Why not? Are you afraid you will expose your deluded megalomania to someone who might read your mail to Crystal.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Right! That's my thinking also..."

That presumes you are able to think and you have shown repeatedly you are not.

"that consent is not required by the effected party for a third party to file a habeas corpus."

You forget that the affected party is not unjustly imprisoned. Neither is felony murderer Shan Carter.

Maybe Shan Carter is the reason you are not allowed to visit with Crystal. You show you know nothing about self defense. So why would prison officials want you to inflict your lack of knowledge on Crystal?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Answer me this... was Daye's spleen removed during emergency surgery on April 3, 2011?"

Irrelevant question. Whether or not the spleen had been removed does not change the fact that Crystal stabbed Reginald Daye and killed him.

Now you are going to rant and rave about perjury.

You have shown you know nothing about self defense, that you know nothing about pro se motions, you know nothing about felony murder, you know nothing about filing meritorious lawsuits. So why should anyone believe you know anything about peerjury?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

For that matter you know nothing about ethical prosecutors.

Your idea of an ethical prosecutor is one who wrongfully prosecutes innocent Caucasian men because they had been falsely accused by a black woman and because by prosecuting them he will win the support of a racist black population.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

Thank you for the information.

I quess all you can do is document what you do and the responses received at this point. It will be interesting to read what the Appeals Court wrote in it's denial letter when you are able to present it in one of your future sharlogs.

I would be more concerned than just about embarassment when posting juror names and such. You might want to check out the laws concerning that a bit is my first and second thought about that matter. Just the fact that Mr. Meier represented a Duke lacrosse player is reason enough for conflict of interest concerns, but obviously there are more.

Thank you again.

Anonymous said...


I would be more concerned than just about embarassment when posting juror names and such. You might want to check out the laws concerning that a bit is my first and second thought about that matter. Just the fact that Mr. Meier represented a Duke lacrosse player is reason enough for conflict of interest concerns, but obviously there are more.



What evidence do you have that Meier ever represented a Duke Lacrosse player? I've never seen that on this blog ...

I know, I'm asking for proof, so I'm a troll. Sorry, but seriously - where is your proof?

Anonymous said...

Seriously just google him for yourself and actually take off your blinders if you have any on - you will see.

But, yes, that fact has been discussed and trolled to oblivion on this blog previously.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:44am:

Meier represented Spencer Young, Young was the father of a Duke Lacrosse player, a member of the 2006 team. The case on which Meier represented Young had nothing to do with Duke and nothing to do with the attempted frame.

The statements made by Anonymous 9:22 and 9:54 are factually incorrect. Based on the rules of this blog, that makes 9:22/9:54 a liar.

Anonymous said...

there are no such rules on this blog evil duke troll it

just because you are an obnoxious hateful crazy making evil duke troll it from durham in wonderland and liestoppers doesn't give you the right to interpret others interpretations of facts as a reason to call them a liar - sheessshhhh louis and heloise - you are very abusive - almost like a professional duke abuser type person - are you?

don't troll me anymore - go away - poof be gone ... and all that

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:16:

I note that Sidney concludes that anyone who disagrees with him is a liar. I am free to do the same.

I note further that I did not disagree with your "interpretation" of the facts. You got your facts wrong.

I suggest that you correct your factual errors.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous August 2, 2014 at 10:16 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?

Anonymous said...

whatever - go away - if i were to write a habeous corpus than i would be sure to get the facts right - in any case the player, his father who cares - does the father's lawyer hate the player then - and therefore would be an excellent lawyer to represent Ms. Mangum in this case - probably not - but if so - you prove that ...

blah

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Can you explain why you never completed a residency, why you never obtained certification by any specialty board. The most likely explanation is you could not get accepted into any residency program.

After failing to be accepted into any residency you spent most of your post medical school career filing and losing frivolous lawsuits.

That is how you ended up as a minimally trained, minimally experienced person with an MD attached inappropriately to your name.

It is also probably why you are so resentful of trained, experienced physicians such as Dr.Clay Nichols.

Anonymous said...

stop bullying me evil duke troll and hate criminal

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:34:

I have a couple of thoughts.

First, I found the autopsy conducted by Dr. Nichols to be rather sloppy. His recollection of facts related to the spleen was inconsistent. I would be less anxious to defend Dr. Nichols.

Having said that, I have heard nothing to convince me that his overall conclusion (that Daye died from complications from the stab wound) is incorrect. Dr. Roberts confirmed that conclusion.

Second, I put little faith in Sidney's medical conclusions--not because of minimal training and experience, but because Sidney has shown he cannot be trusted.

I note that he has not always been wrong. He saw the reference in a report to an esophageal intubation and reached an accurate conclusion. I remind you that you were incorrect on that point (which I agree does not eliminate Mangum's responsibility).

In the past, he has been willing to say anything he believes will help his case. For example, he stated that the failure to find find DNA that matched the defendants was not exculpatory. A failure to match DNA is not exculpatory in a case where the alleged victim claimed the attackers ejaculated and did not wear condoms.

Sidney is either a liar or a fool. In either case, I do not trust him.

Anonymous said...

why should he

is it your business?

no

You get a certified doctor to agree to what Dr. Nichols determined on his report, and see how far that gets you or that doctor why don't you? It doesn't take a medical degree to see that Dr. Nichols is obviously wrong if you compare the medical examiners reports to the duke medical reports.

You are a hatefull troll. That's all.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:49:

A certified doctor did agree to the conclusion Dr. Nichols reached in the autopsy: Daye died from complications from the stab wound.

The defense hired Dr. Roberts. In her report, she agreed with that conclusion.

Tin-Foil Hat said...

You act like you are a judge or jury or something and this is a court instead of a blog, and others are required to play your games with no objection or question. Plus, what ya'll do is highly abusive to EVERYONE, including yourselves. You insult normal intelligence with your it like behavior and questions that merely demonstrate how little you think for yourselves or about others. NO-ONE has to put up with your bs obviously, as it is all it is. Give one reason why anyone should have to put up with what ya'll trolls do to harm others?

No-one has to harm others because ya'll insist on harming others and make games out of doing so repeatedly, for your own entertainment and benefit or reason or threat to harm further. Get real. Ya'll are so abusive and unjust the only thing any one can say to you is ya'll are so abusive and unjust and to stop or whatever.

Anonymous said...

Sidney:

I am shocked that the Court was able to rule so quickly. Once again, your filing is dismissed without even permitting you to have your day in court.

I presume that you will re-file your petition until the Court either grants a hearing or finds you in contempt. You should not worry about being sent to bed without supper.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts needs to be put on the stand the same as Dr. Nichols, and would have been if the trial were a real trial and not just a sham that insults the intelligence of any and every NC citizen and the justice system itself, that is what Dr. Robert's report and how it was handled and presented 'said'.

Anonymous said...

Why should Meier have called a witness whose testimony would have supported the prosecution?

Anonymous said...

He put Dr. Nichols on the stand, ergo he needed to also put Dr. Roberts on the stand.

Anonymous said...

Meier did not put Dr. Nichols on the stand. Nichols was a prosecution witness.

Ergo, your comment at 11:22 is flawed in its premise.

Anonymous said...

If Mr. Meier were defending Ms. Mangum he would have countered the prosecution with evidence from Dr. Robert's report that contradicted Dr. Nichols findings and created significant doubt in the prosecutions case.

If any lawyer were doing its job - they would have done at least that for their client.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous August 2, 2014 at 10:46 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous August 2, 2014 at 11:32 AM

"If Mr. Meier were defending Ms. Mangum he would have countered the prosecution with evidence from Dr. Robert's report that contradicted Dr. Nichols findings and created significant doubt in the prosecutions case.

If any lawyer were doing its job - they would have done at least that for their client."

Dr. Roberts' report did not contradict Dr. Nichols report. The only one who might think so is SIDNEY HARR, the minimally trained, minimally experienced person with an MD appended inappropriately to his name.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous August 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Your statement is awfully presumptuous considering you yourself show no sign of intelligence.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous August 2, 2014 at 11:05 AM
"Sidney:

I am shocked that the Court was able to rule so quickly. Once again, your filing is dismissed without even permitting you to have your day in court."

You are probably the only one. SIDNEY did not make a case for Habeas Corpus. That was obvious to the court. SIDNEY did not deserve a day in court just because he made a filing. The filing must have merit.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:08:

And, except for Sidney, you are probably the only one who did not see the obvious sarcasm. A hint: the reference to Guiowen's comment about being sent to bed without supper.

Anonymous said...

right on kennyhyderal

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11:32am:

You propose an interesting legal strategy.

I agree that there were many documentation errors in the autopsy and it was extremely sloppy. I agree that testimony by Dr. Roberts could have highlighted those errors.

However, the primary objective in discussing the errors is to cause the jurors to question the validity of Nichols conclusion. On cross examination, Roberts would have had to concede that she agreed that Daye died from complications from the stab wound.

How does a confirmation of the conclusion from the autopsy help Crystal?

Anonymous said...

However, the primary objective in discussing the errors is to cause the jurors to question the validity of Nichols conclusion. On cross examination, Roberts would have had to concede that she agreed that Daye died from complications from the stab wound.

How does a confirmation of the conclusion from the autopsy help Crystal?




Remember, Sid says Dr. Roberts was lying about the conclusion, so he somehow thinks it would have helped Crystal to have their expert either:

1. Agree with the conclusion of the autopsy, and stick with it (which would hurt Crystal); or

2. Put her on the stand, and attack her and destroy her credibility because of her conclusion, which would destroy her credibility on the rest of the testimony (which would hurt Crystal).

Has Sid been right about ANYTHING?

I mean, Tin-foil Hat still loves him, but beyond paranoid, delusional, shut-ins, does anyone think Sid can do anything right?

Anonymous said...

Seriously you are just being purposefully dense on that matter, especially since the issue was already discussed with you before. If there was a lawyer who would actually work the case ethically and 'right' I'm sure they could make good use of Dr. Roberts testimony and reports, and with an understanding of the law in favor of actually defending Ms. Mangum's rights, (and the rights of EVERY USA citizen), convince a non-conflicted integrity non-challeged jury of an outcome other than one reached in the first trial and in her favor. It would not have been that difficult either.

Anonymous said...

How?

Anonymous said...

I still,find it hard to understand why having the defense expert confirm the cause of death would help,Crystal.

Anonymous said...

give me a break - now you want me to be her lawyer

egad

go away - this isn't durham in wonderland II, III or IV

Anonymous said...

No one wants you to be her lawyer (least of all Crystal). We simply want to understand your approach.

Anonymous said...

If i were her lawyer i wouldn't tell you here or anywhere, so sorry, i am not the person for you to troll on the matter. Since Dr. Harr is not her lawyer either, neither is he.

Anonymous said...

Then please stop making generalizations and criticisms.

Anonymous said...

i'm not

i write posts to Dr. Harr which he doesn't seem to mind and then get trolled, abused, accussed wrongly, dissed and harrassed unmercifully by the evil duke troll gang from liestoppers and diw, one of which is you

i am harming none

Anonymous said...

Please stop criticizing posters for posts that are not directed to you.

Tin-Foil Hat said...

evil duke troll:

you make no sense at all since the issues with Dr. Nichols is readily seen if you take the time to actually read and compare the reports

you never even read what you criticize others unmercifully about continuously nonstop

you just deny anything and everything that doesn't fit your duke is great and they are victims all by everyone else in NC and the USA

what bs

duke exploits everyone in NC
as a matter of business policy
it is what they are and what they do

they are NOT the victims, although they pretend to be as a matter of business policy - harming any and all while they do

you just do the same thing

maybe if you actually read the reports and didn't keep denying what everyone else sees you would feel better, or at least stop trolling about it which makes absolutely no sense

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

If i were her lawyer i wouldn't tell you here or anywhere, so sorry, i am not the person for you to troll on the matter. Since Dr. Harr is not her lawyer either, neither is he.



Dr. Harr has purported to represent her, without her permission - so he is attempting to act either as her lawyer, or at least as her representative.

Are you really this stupid, or do you just pretend to have fun on this blog like the rest of us.

I have to hope you really aren't serious. The rest of us know this blog is a joke, and are just sad how Harr hurts people to feed his ego.

You do know this whole thing is a big joke, right?

Anonymous said...

you do know that you are a troll right?

do not troll me again

it is not a joke to have the rights of NC citizens trampled on continuously actually

the only joke is watching the trolls try to justify their evil hypocritic outlooks on justice when Duke is concerned or their hatred is questioned, etc., and their attitudes of entitlement to do that too without anyone complaining about it or calling them out for it - but if someone does - they troll even more

on ... and on ... and on

why do ya'll do that?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous August 2, 2014 at 6:33 PM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?

You have just been trolled.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that you just spout your conspiracy bullshit all the time, and when anyone asks for ANY proof, you run and hide under your bridge, throw on your tinfoil hat, and call everyone else a troll.

The fact you are the only one who doesn't realize what a fool you are shows that you really must be Sid - only he is that delusional.

Anonymous said...

Sidney is the biggest hypocrite on this blog.

Anonymous said...

wtf

what conspiracy are you talking about that you say i spout? you are a crazy making evil duke troll

Anonymous said...

The hyprocricy there is that you probably think it is a conspirarcy to think that Dr. Roberts' report needs to be brought into evidence and questioned at a trial not frought with so many conflicts of interest and other unreasonable biases and prejudices and disrespect of constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

The hyprocricy there is that you probably think it is a conspirarcy to think that Dr. Roberts' report needs to be brought into evidence and questioned at a trial not frought with so many conflicts of interest and other unreasonable biases and prejudices and disrespect of constitutionally guaranteed rights.


But, if anyone asks you what those violations were, or the conflicts, or anything else - you won't answer, you will call them TROLL and run - because you know you are full of shit.

If you had any evidence for the crap you spout, you'd provide it - instead you just spew shit out your butt, and when anyone tells you it stinks, you call them a troll and go run and hide.

Again, the fact you don't seem to realize this whole thing is a joke and no one takes you seriously is just a bit sad.

Anonymous said...

The proof is provided to you again and again by Dr. Harr and others in the trial and the trial and its proceedings itself in quite a bit of detail. If you were subject to the same injustice, what would you do?

Anonymous said...

about the conflicts with Mr. Meier - you are right - i said to look it up for yourself because i am not a person on this blog sitting here giving out information for you to boss around and troll and abuse like you do Dr. Harr

i'm not even talking to you but everytime i make a post you troll and accuse me of something, anything - just as long as you troll and abuse - you think you 'win' or something

get real

your abuse is not worthy of reply, i am not your slave, i don't have to provide proof for my opinions about proof already given or discussed, and you can google for yourself

egad

seriously - don't troll me anymore

Anonymous said...

In other words, we are all right - the Conflict and everything else you just pulled out of your ass, and you know you can't prove it.

The stuff Sid has said has reeatedly been shown to be wrong, and he doesn't defent it, or justify it - so his repeated posts prove nothing, but that he can type, and likes to repeat the same BS over and over hoping it sticks.

As to the Conflict, you can google all you want, the ONLY thing you find is that Meier used to work for a healthcare company before law school, which no one has ever explained how that's a conflict with Duke, and that he once represented the father of a Duke Lacrosse person as a court appointed attorney in a low-level felony (which he got dismissed), and a misdemeanor (which the client refused to go to court on). Again, no indication at all why that would be a conflict.

No, you are no one's slave (you'd be useless anyway, you are clearly clueless, and couldn't see through the tin-foil), but neither are we your slave, and if we don't want to blindly believe evidence/BS, we have every right to ask for proof, and if it's not provided, disbelieve anything said, and also mock you for trying to pretend to want to be taken seriously when you clearly have nothing upon which to base your proclamations, and you don't even take yourself seriously.

You were actually more intelligent and believable when you'd just say blah blah blah to everything.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous August 2, 2014 at 10:03 PM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?

You have just been trolled again.

Anonymous said...

In this case, Dr. Meier representing anybody in a duke lacrosse player's family would define the essence of conflict-of-interest and just because you do not agree does not make that fact not matter. If you were trolling to defend a lax person and his court appointed lawyer assigned someone who had represented Ms. Mangum or somone in her family and got the case dismissed - would you then say that he had no conflict to Ms. Mangum and not beat up on anyone who disagreed - doubt it. YOU are the hyprocrite.

Anonymous said...

In this case, Dr. Meier representing anybody in a duke lacrosse player's family would define the essence of conflict-of-interest and just because you do not agree does not make that fact not matter



I was unaware he had a medical degree - and how would it be a conflict to have represented the father of one of the players years later? If the representation had nothing to do with Duke Lacrosse?

You really are an idiot.

Anonymous said...

Of all the lawyers in NC who have Never represented anyone in a Duke lacrosse players family - the Duke / Durham Public Defenders office assigned a lawyer who has done just that. Wonder why.

Anonymous said...

And the lawyer they assigned had a strained relationship with that client. Wonder why.

Anonymous said...

If you read his website, the "relationship" was strained because Young is as crazy as Sid - and while Meier got his criminal charges resolved, Meier wouldn't pursue the vendetta Young clearly has against a bunch of judicial officials in Durham and Florida because that's well beyond the scope of representation.

Anonymous said...

In essence, all of these "conflicts" depend on the existence of a massive conspiracy. Sidney believes Rae Evans controls the world through the Carpetbagger Jihad. Tin Hat believes Duke controls the world.

Both question whether Duke intentionally killed Daye through medical malpractice. Frankly, I find offensive the unsupported suggestion that medical professionals committed murder and four separate attorneys tanked the case because someone was angry at Mangum for her "role" in the lacrosse case.

Anonymous said...

Both question whether Duke intentionally killed Daye through medical malpractice. Frankly, I find offensive the unsupported suggestion that medical professionals committed murder and four separate attorneys tanked the case because someone was angry at Mangum for her "role" in the lacrosse case.



Well, and let's be clear - cause Sid and Tin-Foil and Kenny (who I still believe are all one in the same) all miss this:

If Duke intentionally killed Daye, it was not medical malpractice, which is, by definition, an accident. They are accusing Duke and a bunch of healthcare professionals of premeditated first degree murder - and other medical professionals and attorneys of being part of that conspiracy.

So, at a minimum, they want us to believe that dozens of people engaged in murder, exposing them to life in prison and/or the death penalty, all because they don't like Crystal Mangum.

Makes perfect sense to me - you think Vann, Shella, Holmes, and Meier are worried that they will eventually be caught and arrested, along with all the Duke medical personnel, as well as the Duke Administration folks who must have coordinated and ordered this?

Don't let them kid you and pretend that this was just "intentional malpractice" (which cannot, by definition exist) - they are openly accusing dozens of people of committing pre-meditated murder.

Anonymous said...

When they finally accept that medical malpractice does not eliminate Mangum's legal responsibility for Daye's death unless there was a completely independent condition that triggered the need for the intubation, their focus on murder will become more explicit.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 7:05:

You slightly misstated the allegation.

Dozens of people engaged in murder, not because they don't like Mangum, but because someone else doesn't like her.

Anonymous said...

You slightly misstated the allegation.

Dozens of people engaged in murder, not because they don't like Mangum, but because someone else doesn't like her.



True, and apparently dozens of people are scared enough of that person to risk their own lives and livelihoods to do their bidding, and keep their mouths shut.

Anonymous said...

like to exaggerate much?

actually i'm not accusing anyone of anything

the facts show plainly what those lawyers did or didn't do to assist Ms. Mangum in her defense

the sham of a trial can be witnessed on youtube videos of it - and anyone thinking that was justice should probably be subjected to it if they actually have any say in the matter

the malpractice framing Ms. Mangum for murder - guess what? - it did

no need to accuse - simply pointing out the facts

p.s. maybe Mr. Meier thought he 'owed' Mr. Young a vendetta afterall?

Anonymous said...

You are such a genius and expert ... what would you have done differently in the trial? Was it all about Dr. Roberts and her non-exculpatory report? Or what other mistakes and issues were made that you'd have done differently?

Anonymous said...

I believe the esophageal intubation constituted medical malpractice. None of Sidney, Kenny nor Tin Hat has provided provided any evidence to support the claim that the need for the intubation was caused by a condition that was completely independent of the stab wound.

Kenny has argued the DTs as a cause, but he has steadfastly refused to provide evidence. Sidney has at time touched on the DTs, but he too refuses to provide evidence. Tin Hat ignores this requirement altogether.

As a result, I conclude that Daye died from complications to the stab wound.

Anonymous said...

well good thing you are not the judge, jury, lawyers or doctors in this case (hopefully any others?)

your blog verdict - how special

Anonymous said...

This is a blog. People discuss things on a blog.

I provided my opinion and explained why I reached that opinion. You provide your opinion and resort to ad hominem attacks when asked for evidence and/or a credible explanation.

Why do you seek to eliminate discussion?

Anonymous said...

because all you do is troll and get abusive about everything that is said on this blog ... endlessly

the topics have already been discussed previously, and we were all subjected to your trolling and abuse then too

i discuss what i want to discuss

you troll to amuse yourself by abusing others

don't troll me again and don't read my posts if they bother you so much you feel the need to troll and abuse me no matter what is said or by whom

thanks

Anonymous said...

And if we do troll you again? But, again, it's not trolling to ask questions, and ask for proof - trolling is the ad hominem attacks you throw out there.

Blah Blah Blah ...

You really should go back to that - it's far and way the most intelligent you've ever sounded on this blog.

Anonymous said...

If you really think it's abuse to ask for the basis for your statements you really are in la la land.

Anonymous said...

And, of course, in her report, Dr. Roberts said they ruled out DTs, so had she been put on the stand she would have destroyed Kenny and Sid's holy grail - but I imagine they would have just said she was lying.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:42:

Can you provide a specific reference in Roberts' report where she said that they ruled out the DTs? I missed that statement.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

The News and Observer is running another article on the Medical Examiners system being one of the worst in the nation today.

How long has this been going on since you let the News and Observer and the DA, the lawyers and Duke, the govenor, the medical regulator offices, other major news organizations, and the courts and politicians know about the major issues you discovered in Dr. Nichol's autopsy report in this case? Before the six year old died from carbon dioxide poisoning after the ederly couple died from the same thing right?

Anonymous said...

If you read hthe Dr. Roberts report - you just have to dig it up off the site - she notes that they started Day on Diazepam for DTs, but he remained agitated and had an altered mental state, so they stopped (because that meant it wasn't DTs causing his agitation and issues which led to his intubation).

But, of course, where she conflicts with Sid's view of the world, she is lying, but he somehow still thinks it would have been helpful to put her on the stand. But, she specifically notes that DTs were ruled out.

Anonymous said...

I found that. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous August 3, 2014 at 9:17 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?

Again you have been trolled. What are you going to do about it?

Anonymous said...

http://www.justice4nifong.com/sharlog/sh01.htm

The reference to the DTs is in the Introduction.

Anonymous said...

Of course, Dr. Roberts also notes that the esophageal intubation wasn't malpractice ... but hey, she'd have been a great witness for Crystal - even though she debunks every single one of Sid's theories.

I wonder if Sid will be honest about the dismissal of his Writ of Habeas Corpus - I imagine it was kicked because he was not a lawyer, and didn't have her consent.

You can't represent people without "standing" to do so, and the first thing that standing requires is that they consent/want your representation. Even if Sid were a lawyer, his failure to discuss it with her would have led to dismissal.

Anonymous said...

Some eight months after Mangum's conviction for second degree murder, Sidney and Kenny have advanced two primary grounds for overturning the conviction:

(1) The law is unfair. This law holds Mangum responsible for Daye's death in spite of an esophageal intubation. Her counsel did not attempt to convince the jury to nullify the law. Calling and impeaching Roberts was an important part of that nullification strategy. The failure to attempt jury nullification demonstrates ineffective counsel.

(2) The jury did not believe Mangum's testimony that she acted in self-defense. Her errors (where the stabbing occurred; pulling the mattress to the floor, etc.) were inconsequential and should have been ignored.

Anonymous said...

It is funny, and refreshing, that Kenny did finally take his paranoia and go home. I guess he really didn't like people pretending to be him.

Such a loss ...

guiowen said...

To the 12:32,
I hope you're right.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Anonymous 10:49:

A certified doctor did agree to the conclusion Dr. Nichols reached in the autopsy: Daye died from complications from the stab wound.

The defense hired Dr. Roberts. In her report, she agreed with that conclusion.


Dr. Roberts prefaced her conclusion by using flawed legal reasoning rather than medical logical reasoning. There was no way to medically conclude that the stab wound was related to Daye's brain death or actual death. Basically what Dr. Roberts is saying in her conclusion is that since the stab wound brought Daye to the hospital and treatment he received in the hospital during his stay resulted in his death, then his death is a complication of the stab wound. This is a bunch of baloney, but it is necessary baloney required to justify the murder charge against Mangum.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Dr. Roberts prefaced her conclusion by using flawed legal reasoning rather than medical logical reasoning."

Interesting statement since you use flawed legal reasoning in the case of Shan Carter, in the case of Crystal Mangum. Since you are a minimally trained, minimally experienced person with an MD appended inappropriately to your name, you are fundamentally incapable of logical medical reasoning.

"There was no way to medically conclude that the stab wound was related to Daye's brain death or actual death. Basically what Dr. Roberts is saying in her conclusion is that since the stab wound brought Daye to the hospital and treatment he received in the hospital during his stay resulted in his death, then his death is a complication of the stab wound."

That was and is logical medical reasoning. It is not surprising that a minimally trained minimally experienced person with MD appended inappropriately to his name can't see that.

"This is a bunch of baloney, but it is necessary baloney required to justify the murder charge against Mangum."

Again you show your are incapable of logical legal reasoning and, as a minimally trained, minimally experienced person with MD appended inappropriately to your name you are incapable of logical medical reasoning.

Anonymous said...

No, the judge clarified the law that agrees with Dr. Harr's logic. However, Dr. Robert's did not write her report with the understanding of the law as the judge had clarified it to be, but rather as that like many on this blog mislead by Walt's wishful logic of the law (in this case) want to see.

Anyway, Dr. Nichols on the stand - ergo Dr. Roberts on the stand (or not) - in otherwords, neither of their conclusions are the verdict - otherwise why even have a trial in the first place. Both were written like they were a verdict instead of a medical report which is required in order to present medical information and evidence to the court.

That is really simple to understand.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"It is funny, and refreshing, that Kenny did finally take his paranoia and go home. I guess he really didn't like people pretending to be him.

Such a loss ..."

August 3, 2014 at 12:32 PM



I am confident that we have not seen the last of Kenny. Several times in the past, he has stomped his feet, threatened to leave, and then disappeared for a week or two. But he always returns.

guiowen said...


"But he always returns."

More's the pity

Anonymous said...

Did stated on the previous blog entry that the purpose of this one was to "shape history". Did he succeed? If so, how so? I look forward to your responses.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, that should have read "Sid stated....". Damn you, autocorrect!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Sorry, that should have read "Sid stated....". Damn you, autocorrect!



Hard to say ... I imagine that filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus for someone who has not authorized you to act on their behalf, and has no knowledge that you are filing it, and then having it dismissed within a matter of days isn't all that historic, but is par for the course for Sid.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at 5:16 AM:

Sid also said he would have Mangum out of jail by 7/31/14. Sid has made many predictions. Not one has come to pass.

The speed with which the court disposed of the writ was historic.

I have a hunch the NC Bar will be calling on Sid again, if they haven't already. It will be interesting to hear Sid's argument on why preparing and filing a legal pleading in a court of law on someone else's behalf isn't practising law. It will also be interesting to see how the Bar punishes him this time.

Anonymous said...

Sid said:

"There was no way to medically conclude that the stab wound was related to Daye's brain death or actual death."

Are you seriously suggesting that Mr. Daye would have had the same medical outcome if Mangum hadn't stabbed him?

Anonymous said...

Maybe he was in the hospital because he was sick, drank too much, assualted someone in this sick drunken state who had the right to defend themselves when they thought their lives were in danger, and then when those same signs of illness and consequences of the drunken state appeared in Duke, they reacted by providing preventable malpractice which ultimately ended in his death when the machines that they necessited to keep him alive after he was basically dead for a week were disconnected from his lifeless form. So, yes, it could have seriously been an illness and results of a drunken state causing seriously assaultive and threatening behavior that was the FIRST proximate cause, if that's what your looking for (versus the Last which would be Duke's malpractice AND removal of life support required after their medical malpractice).

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Maybe he was in the hospital because he was sick, drank too much, assualted someone in this sick drunken state who had the right to defend themselves when they thought their lives were in danger, and then when those same signs of illness and consequences of the drunken state appeared in Duke, they reacted by providing preventable malpractice which ultimately ended in his death when the machines that they necessited to keep him alive after he was basically dead for a week were disconnected from his lifeless form. So, yes, it could have seriously been an illness and results of a drunken state causing seriously assaultive and threatening behavior that was the FIRST proximate cause, if that's what your looking for (versus the Last which would be Duke's malpractice AND removal of life support required after their medical malpractice).



Damn ... Kenny is clearly back, just not posting under his name.

Anonymous said...

seriously?

don't troll me again

if you troll me again like you do kenny i will consider your trolling of kenny a hate crime as well as your trolling of me or anyone else

thanks

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

seriously?

don't troll me again

if you troll me again like you do kenny i will consider your trolling of kenny a hate crime as well as your trolling of me or anyone else

thanks



Do you even know what a "hate crime" is? Asking questions on a blog is not a hate crime, though you show a total lack of comprehension, so I am sure that is lost on you. And, even if you consider it a hate crime, what, exactly, does that mean?

Anonymous said...

The 'though you show a total lack of comprehension' attached to the question that you have already been part of a long drawn out trolling about the issue is trolling, and since you have been asked not to troll here because of your hatefilled posts directed at someone you accuse of being Ms. Mangum, Ms. Peterson, Kenny AND Dr. Harr as well as those persons themselves - your prejudices and abusive hateful trolling of them are thus made into a hate crime against all of them.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous August 5, 2014 at 11:05 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous August 5, 2014 at 11:49 AM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?

You have again been trolled.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: August 5, 2014 at 1:28 PM

No one believes the propaganda you spout because you are incredibly and irredeemably stupid.

Now go ahead and again threaten to call me a hate criminal.

Don't you hate it when someone points out how stupid and impotent you are?

Again you have been trolled

Anonymous said...

Anonymous August 5, 2014 at 1:28 PM:

The person to whom you refer as "Dr. Harr" is in fact some minimally trained, minimally experienced person with MD appended inappropriately to his name and is totally incapable of practicing Medicine. Nor is he capable of evaluating the performance of real physicians.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous August 5, 2014 at 1:28 PM:

I guess you call it a hate crime to point out that this person to whom you refer as "Dr. Harr" is also incapable of practicing law. How would you evaluate the legal skills, the legal acumen of a person who can't distinguish self defense from willful murder?

guiowen said...

To the 1:28:
Wow! What are you going to do about all these hate crimes?
Maybe you can get Mike Nifong to come out of retirement, recover his rightful position as DA, and prosecute all these people!

Break the Conspiracy said...

Sidney,

You are doing exactly the right thing.

It is clear that the disagreement is primarily legal. You believe that an esophageal intubation eliminates Mangum's legal responsibility for Daye's death. For that reason, you regard Roberts' report as absolute proof of Mangum's innocence. You believe the judge's instructions to the jury support this view.

Walt, A Lawyer, Lance and others note that Welch and Jones hold that medical malpractice is not an intervening cause. If intubation was necessitated by any condition resulting from the stab wound (e.g., infection, DTs triggered by trauma, etc.), Mangum continues to be legally responsible. They believe the judge's instructions support them.

By not focusing on the esophageal intubation, Shella, Vann, Holmes and Meier apparently reached the same conclusion as Walt. Nichols and Roberts based their reports on this legal conclusion.

You are obviously correct. Walt, A Lawyer, Lance, Shella, Vann, Holmes, Meier, Nichols, Roberts and others are wrong.

Although you consistently lose lawsuits and your motions are dismissed as without merit, your legal analysis is never flawed. These losses are due to conspiracies.

You know the law better than lawyers. Don't consult attorneys. Don't do legal research (cases are available on the internet). Don't consider comments, least of all by those who claim to have legal training and expertise.

Continue to abuse those who disagree with you. Ignore their questions. Snub their advice. Subject them to ad hominem attacks. Don't refine your arguments to make them more effective. If readers are not persuaded, they are stupid. Constant repetition may shame them.

Repetitive legal filings designed to probe "loopholes" in the laws prohibiting the unlawful practice of law make your case more compelling.

This is exactly what will free Mangum!

Anonymous said...

Break said it better than i ever could ... I'm done! (Except maybe to troll tin-foil with questions every now and then ... apparently I'm a hate criminal.)

Anonymous said...

wow - and we didn't even have to throw water on ya

bye

Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,

I was just pondering your latest stage in the efforts to achieve at the very least reasonable justice in Ms. Mangum's current case. The problem has always been the lack of ability to obtain lawyers (and a justice system) free from conflict of interest with the ME system and Duke. Since the state bar association insists that you not represent anyone but yourself because it is the law, then asking them to fix the conflict of interest and biases that exist in the justice system that is causing constitutional and justice system laws themselves to be broken seems reasonable since they seem to have responsibility over those issues if they can have authority over laws prohibiting anyone without legal credentials and assigned as a lawyer to a case to practice law for any but themselves.

It would be interesting to see what they have to say about the issue, and if they will assist in fixing the problems which seems to be their responsibility. Is it?

Anonymous said...

What the State Bar would say is that there has been no credible evidence of any conflict with Mangum's attorneys. Going to UNC-CH School of Law is not a conflict with the ME, if it was, no one from UNC could work in Criminal Defense. Working for some hospitals in Texas 15-18 years ago is not a conflict with Duke. The "conflicts" are figments of Sid's imagination, and everyone but he and tin-foil hat know it (though Tin-foil suspects it, because everytime he is asked to provide evidence he screams troll and hate-crime and goes and hides under his bed, so he knows it's made up).

Duke could care less about Mangum, it's funny that Sid still thinks they do - but the fact that Sid really thinks they do, and would reward those who hurt Mangum, and he's been trying to get money from Duke, and clearly trying to hurt Mangum (despite his protestations, everyone else see he is hurting her) - that's the real conflict - he thinks if he hurts Mangum, Duke will reward him.

Anonymous said...

No i don't answer your questions troll because all you are doing is trolling abusively on this blog with twisted logic in YOUR attempts to harm Ms. Mangum and others in what appears to be directed and centered on maintaining and gaining Duke's favor.

Even when i do answer the question about why i do not answer your trolling questions, you take that answer, just like all others, and distort it into yet another negative false accusation and more obnoxious, abusive trolling. This all to questions that have been discussed and trolled for days, weeks, months, years on end by and with you. You can look at the posts of this one sharlog as a good example of what you do.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

No i don't answer your questions troll because all you are doing is trolling abusively on this blog with twisted logic in YOUR attempts to harm Ms. Mangum and others in what appears to be directed and centered on maintaining and gaining Duke's favor.

Even when i do answer the question about why i do not answer your trolling questions, you take that answer, just like all others, and distort it into yet another negative false accusation and more obnoxious, abusive trolling. This all to questions that have been discussed and trolled for days, weeks, months, years on end by and with you. You can look at the posts of this one sharlog as a good example of what you do.



You do understand, don't you, that several people post as "Anonymous" so you attack "you" when referencing someone who isn't the same one attacking you.

And, the reason you don't answer questions is you don't have answers - that's obvious.

If you had any proof or answers, you'd stand by your statements, instead you run and scream - which is the standard response when someone doesn't actually have any proof for what they say.

Anonymous said...

well good thing your screaming and running away then

bye

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 257   Newer› Newest»