Click on the button below to access
The letter above was posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2015
The letter above was posted on Thursday, October 8, 2015
The letter above was posted on Tuesday, October 6, 2015
The letter above was posted on Monday, October 5, 2015
The letter above was posted on Thursday, October 1, 2015
The letter above was posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2015
The letter above was posted on Monday, September 28, 2015
The letter above was posted on Thursday, September 24, 2015
The letter above was posted on Monday, September 21, 2015
The letter above was posted on Friday, September 18, 2015
The letter above was posted on Thursday, September 17, 2015
The letter above was posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015
The letter above was posted on Monday, September 14, 2015
The letter above was posted on Wednesday, September 9, 2015
The letter above is in response to NC State Bar letter dated August 31, 2015, and was posted on Tuesday, September 8, 2015
The letters above are in reference to the NC State Bar letter of August 31, 2015, and were posted on Sunday, September 6, 2015
The correspondence above was received on Thursday, September 3, 2015 and posted on Saturday, September 5, 2015
The correspondence above was received on Thursday, September 3, 2015 and posted on Friday, September 4, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, September 3, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Wednesday, September 2, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, September 1, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Monday, August 31, 2015
It is the adopted policy to post letters of pertinence regarding Mangum's case on this blog site. The reason is to give as much transparency towards the investigation and advocacy of the issues related to the abysmal and horrific treatment of Crystal Mangum by the media, State, and others.
1,133 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1133 of 1133Ah....So if the children wanted to see their mother outside of the MATCH program, and you had taken up that time with your visits, they couldn't correct?
Blogger kenhyderal said...
Anonymous said: " Hire medical experts who support the conclusion that the intubation was an intervening cause".............................. Rest assured if Crystal gets a new trial this will be easily done. Dr. Harr believes that a new trial will not be necessary and that the verdict will be summarily over-turned once the truth is known. Either way Crystal will eventually receive Justice; not to mention compensation for her wrongful conviction and incarceration
Bahahahahahahaha
Bahahahahahahaha
Bahahahahahahaha
And one more time . . .
Bahahahahahahaha
Kenny, Does this mean you are working on another secret plan-- this one to recover compensation for Crystal?
Walt said: (in quoting Ridgeway) "The relevant part of the pattern jury instruction reads: "If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the alleged date the defendant acting intentionally and with malice, wounded the victim with a deadly weapon, thereby proximately causing the victim's death, it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty of second
degree murder."
........................................ Let me, if I may, dissect these instructions. Anyone who believes there was no reasonable doubt that Crystal acted in self defence demonstrates an unreasonable bias. The notion that bigger, stronger, drunken, enraged, jealous Daye who admitted assaulting and manhandling Crystal suddenly fearing for his own safety decided to flea his own apartment is unreasonable. His unexamined statement first claimed he was trying to restrain her from going out because "it's unsafe out there" and then later saying he wanted her to get out of his home causing her to attack him with a knife. No forensic evidence connected Crystal to the multitude of knives scattered all around and the jury never heard that Daye had a hobby of hurling knives at targets. Second the defensive stab wound did not proximately cause Daye's death. That of course was the egregious medical malpractice of an uncorrected esophageal intubation. There is no evidence whatsoever of any post surgical complication. There is, however hard evidence of medical malpractice and speculation only of a complication to the stab wound. Oh there must of been a complication otherwise, horrors the, despised Crystal Mangum would have gotten off
Stop fantasizing, Kenny.
The jurors understood that Reggie cooled off and decided to walk away, hoping Crystal would also cool off. She did not cool off. She knew that, a year previously, you and your friends had persuaded good old Milton to take the blame for her. She figured you would do the same in this case. So she just decided to let him know he couldn't treat her this way.
Unfortunately, he didn't survive this and so wasn't around to take the blame.
Too bad!
Kenny,
I hope that your 9:35pm post is not a summary of your secret plan to free Crystal.
kenhyderal said...
"Let me, if I may, dissect these instructions. Anyone who believes there was no reasonable doubt that Crystal acted in self defence demonstrates an unreasonable bias."
What no legal training, no legal experience kenny hissy fit defines as unreasonable bias is recognition that he is trying to get his favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.
kenhyderal said...
"Let me, if I may, dissect these instructions. Anyone who believes there was no reasonable doubt that Crystal acted in self defence demonstrates an unreasonable bias."
What kenny defines as unreasonable bias is recognition that his agenda is to get his favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.
kenhyderal said...
"the defensive stab wound did not proximately cause Daye's death."
Here no medical training, no medical experience kenny shows how incredibly stupid he is.
kenhyderal said...
"That of course was the egregious medical malpractice of an uncorrected esophageal intubation. There is no evidence whatsoever of any post surgical complication."
Another occurrence of no medical training, no medical experience kenny hissy fit opening his mouth and removing all doubt that he is a fool.
And, remember - Kenny admittedly refuses to get permission from Crystal to speak with any of her lawyers, or the experts, and see how they would actually answer all these "unknown" issues. He's a joke, so is Sid.
Guiowen wrote: "Stop fantasizing, Kenny."
Ding-Ding-Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!
Sid wrote: Walt, let me try once more to dispel any doubts regarding Mangum and visitation with her children. I met with her today and this is what she explained to me. There is a program called "MATCH" an acronym for Mothers And Their CHildren. It is a separate visitation program that allows mothers to meet for three hours with their children once a month.
Let me know if further elucidation is required."
It's once every three months according to the Justice Department, not every month. As I said, it's good if Crystal is taking advantage of the program. But, you still keep her from having weekly visits with her child. You're still an abuser and still a traitor.
kenhyderal said...
"There is, however hard evidence of medical malpractice and speculation only of a complication to the stab wound."
Another example of no clinical training, no clinical experience kenny hisy fit showing how much he does not know.
How do you know the complications to the stab wound were "speculation" Kenny? You refuse to ask the lawyers or doctors any questions.
kenny said:
"There is no evidence whatsoever of any post surgical complication. There is, however hard evidence of medical malpractice and speculation only of a complication to the stab wound."
Actually, Kenny, you have it backwards. There is hard evidence that Mr. Daye died as a result of the stab wound. The ME made a report and testified to this in court. The defense's expert corroborated his findings. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Daye was a victim of medical malpractice, or that medical malpractice was the cause of his death. Sid has made this claim in shlogs, but Sid is not a medical expert (he isn't even a licensed physician); his shlogs are not admissible as evidence in court and he has failed to locate a single medical expert willing to testify that Mr. Daye died as a result of malpractice and that said malpractice was an intervening cause and unrelated to the stab wound inflicted by Mangum.
You may not like what the ME said and you may not like that the defense expert corroborated his conclusions, but it is the only evidence in this case regarding the cause of Mr. Daye's death. No evidence was ever admitted and no evidence has ever been produced to support Sid's claim that Mr. Daye died as a result of malpractice unrelated to the stab wound inflicted by Mangum.
I am also tickled by your suggestion that "[a]nyone who believes there was no reasonable doubt that Crystal acted in self defence demonstrates an unreasonable bias." In other words, only people who will unquestionably believe whatever Mangum says and disregard conflicting evidence should sit on the jury? Nice try, but that's not how it worked.
As previously explained, there was more than sufficient reason for the jury to disregard Mangum's testimony that she acted in self defense: it contradicted Mr. Daye's statement and was at tension with the physical evidence. Moreover, Mangum's actions and demeanor following her assault of Mr. Daye indicated consciousness of guilt and was inconsistent with someone acting in self defense. In light of the evidence adduced at trial, the jury's decision to reject Mangum's self-defense claim was entirely appropriate and supported by the evidence.
In any event, findings of fact are solely within the purview of the jury. Their determination that Mangum did not act in self defense when she assaulted Mr. Daye will not be overturned by the any court or tribunal.
Mangum's only hope is that the NC Supreme Court grants the PDR filed by her attorney, which, for reasons previously explained by Walt and others, is an extremely long shot.
Now go make yourself a sausage and give your big brain a rest.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
The Supreme Court CANNOT grant the PDR filed by Anne Peterson - it was withdrawn at the request of Mangum. The only one they have for their consideration is the one filed by Sid (which he admitted in his letter to the Warden he drafted - so if the Bar gets wind of it, he's got some issues). And, since Sid's doesn't actually fit the proper legal requirements, it will not be granted.
Her hope was the PDR filed by Peterson, but her abuser - who keeps wanting her in custody - had her withdraw it.
Sid - That was a very generous offer you made to NCCIW. I suggest you install LibreOffice instead of Microsoft Office software on your donated computer, however. LibreOffice comes with a very similar set of tools, and their document program can open and save files in MS Word format...and it's free. Just a thought....
Abe said: "Actually, Kenny, you have it backwards. There is hard evidence that Mr. Daye died as a result of the stab wound. The ME made a report and testified to this in court"...................................................................... No,Abe Dr. Nichols testified that Daye died due to, "obviously some sort of infection", or "some sort of other catastrophic illness." "But as a result of him being stabbed, is the reason why we have a homicide manner of death as well." During cross examination, the defense attorney asked if Daye could have survived the stabbing if he had not contracted "the infection" To which Dr. Nichols simply answered, "Yes". Here's where Meier stopped. This was sheer speculation on the part of Nichols. Keep in mind that Roberts did not testify but she did say in her report that Daye died of cerebral anoxia and conceded that this was due to an errant esophageal intubation. She then went on to append that she concurred with Nichols contradicting her own finding.
kenhyderal said...
"Dr. Nichols testified that Daye died due to, 'obviously some sort of infection', or 'some sort of other catastrophic illness.' 'But as a result of him being stabbed, is the reason why we have a homicide manner of death as well.' During cross examination, the defense attorney asked if Daye could have survived the stabbing if he had not contracted 'the infection' To which Dr. Nichols simply answered, 'Yes'. Here's where Meier stopped. This was sheer speculation on the part of Nichols."
This quote is another manifestation of the incredible stupidity of no clinical traning, no clinical experience, no legal training, no legal experience kenny hissy fit, and od his perverted crusade to get his favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.
guiowen said...
Stop fantasizing, Kenny.
The jurors understood that Reggie cooled off and decided to walk away, hoping Crystal would also cool off. She did not cool off. She knew that, a year previously, you and your friends had persuaded good old Milton to take the blame for her. She figured you would do the same in this case. So she just decided to let him know he couldn't treat her this way.
Unfortunately, he didn't survive this and so wasn't around to take the blame.
Too bad!
gui, mon ami, are you kidding? Face it, Reggie was drunk! Secondly, Mangum wasn't arguing with Daye over money like the prosecution would have you believe... It was all a one-sided jealousy-driven diatribe by Reggie against Mangum. There was no cooling off period as you attempt to suggest... his attack on Mangum was relentless and escalating. She stabbed him in self-defense, period.
Fake Kenhyderal said...
Sid - That was a very generous offer you made to NCCIW. I suggest you install LibreOffice instead of Microsoft Office software on your donated computer, however. LibreOffice comes with a very similar set of tools, and their document program can open and save files in MS Word format...and it's free. Just a thought....
Hey, Fake Kenhyderal.
Wa-do* for the comment and suggestion. I will look into LibreOffice.
*Cherokee for "Thank you."
Face it, Reggie was drunk! Secondly, Mangum wasn't arguing with Daye over money like the prosecution would have you believe... It was all a one-sided jealousy-driven diatribe by Reggie against Mangum. There was no cooling off period as you attempt to suggest... his attack on Mangum was relentless and escalating. She stabbed him in self-defense, period.
The jury heard Mangum testify to that, and chose not to believe her. No appellate court has the power to change the jury's decision as to credibility.
Crystal's attorney brought up the whole jealousy angle - he argued self-defense - you were the one who didn't want that area pursued.
You are a pathetic disgrace.
As to your donation ... they may accept one, but they would install all the software on it - due to security concerns they aren't going to take a computer donated by someone and put it in where the prisoners can access it. They may allow you to make a monetary donation so they can purchase the equipment, or let you purchase it and ship to them, but they will not take an open computer, with software you installed.
Nifong Supporter said...
"She stabbed him in self-defense, period."
Wrong.
She murdered him. Period.
Anonymous said...
"Kenny,
I hope that your 9:35pm post is not a summary of your secret plan to free Crystal."
October 8, 2015 at 12:16 AM
Why are you spreading misinformation? kenhyderal has stated clearly on this blog that his plan is to win a new trial for Crystal.
Kenny's plan I so secret that he doesn't even know it.
"Anonymous said...
Kenny's plan I so secret that he doesn't even know it."
Not surprising, considering kenny's capacity t know anything, or lack thereof.
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Face it, Reggie was drunk! Secondly, Mangum wasn't arguing with Daye over money like the prosecution would have you believe... It was all a one-sided jealousy-driven diatribe by Reggie against Mangum. There was no cooling off period as you attempt to suggest... his attack on Mangum was relentless and escalating. She stabbed him in self-defense, period.
The jury heard Mangum testify to that, and chose not to believe her. No appellate court has the power to change the jury's decision as to credibility.
So, A Lawyer, you believe that after Mangum and Daye returned home from the party at around 1:00 am, they got into an argument about money? Is that what you truly believe? Let me know what you think the so-called argument was about.
When Crystal got on the stand, she was not given carte blanche to give a narrative... she was led in direct examination by questioning from her turncoat attorney. I don't believe that he even asked her on the stand whether or not they were arguing and what the argument was about. Meier, besides not knowing the case, was very inept. The jury never heard the salient points of the case.
Face it, the cashier's checks were of no value to Mangum as she was neither the remitter nor the payee. She would have no objection to giving them to him. Also, just because Daye didn't have physical possession of the cashier's checks did not deny him access to their monetary value, unless first cashed by the payee. What's the big deal about the cashier's checks? Or do you believe that Mangum stole $700 in cash from Daye, as he and his nephew Carlos Wilson misled the police officers to believe?
Anonymous said...
As to your donation ... they may accept one, but they would install all the software on it - due to security concerns they aren't going to take a computer donated by someone and put it in where the prisoners can access it. They may allow you to make a monetary donation so they can purchase the equipment, or let you purchase it and ship to them, but they will not take an open computer, with software you installed.
Wa-do for your informational comment. However, these are some issues that we can discuss if he contacts me and we set up an appointment to meet. It was not my intention to just show up at the prison door with an armload of computer, printer, paper, and other computer accessories.
I'll let you know as soon as I get word.
Nifong Supporter said...
"When Crystal got on the stand, she was not given carte blanche to give a narrative... she was led in direct examination by questioning from her turncoat attorney. I don't believe that he even asked her on the stand whether or not they were arguing and what the argument was about. Meier, besides not knowing the case, was very inept. The jury never heard the salient points of the case."
mr. harr again presumes a fact not in evidence, that he knows the salient points of the case.
Meier did ask - and his closing was all about how Daye was in a jealous rage because he took her to meet his family, and she washstand flirting with others. Did you watch the trial Sid? Meier showed it wasn't about money - it was jealousy.
If I was the warden I would not let Sidney donate anything, cash or hardware. This would be a slippery slope as once this was accepted other inmate's families or friends would start trying to do the same. And having one computer for all the inmates would be a nightmare to manage.
Magnum should have no problem in writing her own briefs on paper and getting them submitted to the court. If she cannot do this on her own, then she needs to get a real lawyer. Sidney can keep on writing his letters and sharlogs, but an attorney he is not.
So, A Lawyer, you believe that after Mangum and Daye returned home from the party at around 1:00 am, they got into an argument about money? Is that what you truly believe?
I said nothing about money or cashier's checks-- why are you putting words in my mouth?
Personally, I think they argued about Crystal "seeing" other men while she was living with Daye. But that is neither here nor there-- the point I was making is that the jury heard Crystal testify that she was acting in self defense, and the jury didn't believe her. There is no mechanism under our legal system whereby an appellate court will substitute its own judgment about the facts for that of the jury. Appellate courts consider legal issues only. The Petition you drafted for Crystal doesn't raise any legal issues-- it cites zero caselaw-- and it is thereby doomed to fail.
When Crystal got on the stand, she was not given carte blanche to give a narrative... she was led in direct examination by questioning from her turncoat attorney.
Meier urged Crystal not to take the stand-- he even put that on the record. Had she not testified, the evidence would have very strongly supported a verdict of self-defense. Mangum ruined that for herself by giving inconsistent answers on cross-examination.
We're leaving together,
But still it's farewell
And maybe we'll come back
To earth, who can tell?
I guess there is no one to blame
We're leaving ground (leaving ground)
Will things ever be the same again?
It's the final countdown
The final countdown
Oh
We're heading for Venus (Venus)
And still we stand tall
'Cause maybe they've seen us (seen us)
And welcome us all, yeah
With so many light years to go
And things to be found (to be found)
I'm sure that we'll all miss her so
It's the final countdown
The final countdown
The final countdown
The final countdown
Oh
The final countdown, oh
It's the final count down
The final countdown
The final countdown
The final countdown
Oh
It's the final count down
We're leaving together
The final count down
We'll all miss her so
It's the final countdown
It's the final countdown
Oh
It's the final countdown, yeah
UBES IS BACK
WITH THE LIESTOPPER CRANKS
SPIN UBES
SPIN
QUACK
QUACK
Guess who just got back today
Them wild-eyed boys that had been away
Haven't changed that much to say
But man, I still think them cats are crazy
They were askin' if you were around
How you was, where you could be found
Told 'em you were livin' downtown
Drivin' all the old men crazy
The boys are back in town
(The boys are back in town)
The boys are back in town
(The boys are back in town again)
You know that chick that used to dance a lot
Every night she'd be on the floor, shakin' what she got
When I say she was cool she was red hot
I mean, she was steamin'
And that time over at Johnny's place,
Well, this chick got up and she slapped Johnny's face
Man, we just fell about the place
If that chick don't want to know, forget her
The boys are back in town
(The boys are back in town)
The boys are back in town
(The boys are back in town)
The boys are back in town
(The boys are back in town)
The boys are back in town
(The boys are back in town again)
Spread the word around
Guess who's back in town
Just spread the word around
Friday night they'll be dressed to kill
Down at Dino's Bar 'n' Grill
The drink will flow and the blood will spill
And if the boys want to fight, you better let 'em
That jukebox in the corner blastin' out my favorite song
The nights are getting longer, it won't be long
Won't be long till the summer comes
Now that the boys are here again
The boys are back in town
(The boys are back in town)
The boys are back in town
(The boys are back in town)
The boys are back in town
(The boys are back in town)
Spread the word around
The boys are back in town
(The boys are back in town again)
The boys are back in town again
Been hangin' down at Dino's
The boys are back in town again
This poster now using the name the Great Kilgo is an imposter. He is a sadistic person here to make game of those trying to assist Crystal.
Sid,
It has been almost two month since you slogged us. Get that sock filled.
I am proud to call UBES my friend.
Sidney,
I require elucidation. Why do you believe that making straw man arguments is the best way to help Crystal? It was clear that A Lawyer was making the point that the jury's decision not to believe Crystal's testimony regarding self-defense is not appealable. You ignored that completely. Why?
As you know, a straw man argument is an intellectually dishonest rhetorical device. You win no support when you rely on intellectually dishonest arguments.
I agree with A Lawyer. The evidence provided--broken bathroom door, clumps of hair, angry Daye--supports self-defense (although I would not characterize it as "very strongly" as did A Lawyer). In my opinion, Crystal's inconsistent testimony was the primary reason the jury rejected self-defense.
Her "friends" who encouraged her to testify owe her an apology.
https://www.facebook.com/ubesoficial
THE GREAT KILGO said...
"UBES IS BACK
WITH THE LIESTOPPER CRANKS
SPIN UBES
SPIN
QUACK
QUACK"
Great Kilgo wants UBES - University of Bristol Expeditions Society(UBES) to do a duck imitation while rotating on its axis???
https://www.facebook.com/bristolexpeditions
https://www.facebook.com/ubesoficial
Great Kilgo, what does the University of Bristol Expeditions Society have to do with crystal's phony rape allegation in the first place?
A lawyer and Anon at 9:11 AM make good points. Sid refuses to understand that no court of appeal will set aside a jury's judgment on credibility.
Prior to Crystal's very poor decision to testify, there was physical evidence from which a self defense argument could be made. Unfortunately her poor decision making led her to reject the good and wise counsel of her attorney and take the stand. There, she proceeded to give such unbelievable testimony about the facts of the case that the jury rejected her testimony completely and went with Daye's deathbed statement. Frequently, Crystal is her own worst enemy, but she gets a lot of harm in that department from Sid and Kenny. For reasons we don't know, they seem to want to undermine her at every turn.
Walt-in-Durham
When do we get a new shlog? This one is well past its expiration date and it's getting moldy.
Walt said about Sidney and Kenny: For reasons we don't know, they seem to want to undermine her at every turn.
I think you are being unfair. I have concluded that Sidney genuinely is as stupid as he acts and that he actually believes that he is helping her. He alone is fighting with Crystal to overcome a massive conspiracy. Kenny is just a troll. He doesn't actually care what happens to Crystal. He is just pretending to be her close personal friend when he is in character on this board.
Anonymous at 5:48 PM wrote: "I think you are being unfair. I have concluded that Sidney genuinely is as stupid as he acts and that he actually believes that he is helping her. He alone is fighting with Crystal to overcome a massive conspiracy."
There is evidence to support that view. Sid's paranoid belief in conspiracies, his inability to learn. Sid seems to take a position from a lack of information, based completely on racial identification and stick to it regardless of the facts. I have never been willing to go that far simply because I find it difficult to imagine someone getting through medical school and being as stupid as Sid appears at times. That said, he is a terrible student.
"Kenny is just a troll. He doesn't actually care what happens to Crystal. He is just pretending to be her close personal friend when he is in character on this board."
I don't think there is any question that Kenny is a pretender. I do give him the benefit of the doubt to a certain extent. He might have known of Crystal in high school. Although, I doubt she knew him.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous said...
Sid,
It has been almost two month since you slogged us. Get that sock filled.
Sorry 'bout that. Producing sharlogs, especially to the quality to which fans of this blog site are deserving and accustomed, is extremely energy and effort intensive. I have recently begun to exert more time and effort on completing the final stages of my latest sharlog.
To my defense, I have also been busy with extra-curricular activities (including letter-writing) that have taken up my time. My best guess for the posting of my sharlog would hopefully be by this coming Saturday. Again, sorry for the delay.
So, the Supreme Court deny your petition last week Sid?
It is pathetic and totally delusional that Sid still cites the Larceny of Chose in Action for Felony Murder even though it's been conclusively shown to not be a felony that could predicate the felony murder rule.
Are you really this stupid Sid, or this delusional, or you just trolling?
That issue is completely and totally wrong, and your refusal to learn that discredits everything you've done or continue to do - since it is proof you refuse to learn/listen, or are totally incapable of it.
You are either an idiot or mentally ill.
In the orders posted today, Sidney's writ was denied. Harr II is over. Sidney, when are you going to file Harr III?
Can you provide the link?
Thanks.
No. 15-173
Title:
Sidney B. Harr, Petitioner
v.
Richard H. Brodhead, et al.
Docketed: August 7, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Case Nos.: (14-1887)
Decision Date: December 22, 2014
Rehearing Denied: March 6, 2015
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 1 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 8, 2015)
Jun 1 2015 Supplemental appendix of Sidney B. Harr filed.
Aug 20 2015 Waiver of right of respondents Richard H. Brodhead, et al. to respond filed.
Aug 24 2015 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Respondents to respond filed.
Aug 25 2015 Waiver of right of respondent North Carolina to respond filed.
Sep 16 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 9, 2015.
Oct 13 2015 Petition DENIED. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Link here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-173.htm
Nifong Supporter said...
"To my defense, I have also been busy with extra-curricular activities (including letter-writing) that have taken up my time."
You must take some masochistic pleasure in being ignored.
Sidney,
Now that your appeal to the Supreme Court is out of the way, you should concentrate on the NC State Bar. Have they responded to your letter from early last month? I know you expect that they will agree that your efforts on Crystal's PDR do not constitute the unlawful practice of law. No reasonable person could believe that the discussion of issues to be included in a fling and the drafting of the filing itself could possibly be regarded as violating your injunction.
I recommend that you contact them again asking for confirmation. You should also send them a copy of Mangum's filing.
Sid ...
Can you explain why you keep pushing felony murder, even though the statute, case law, and even the jury instructions in this case, have all been provided to you showing it wasn't applicable. You keep saying "then why did the DA charge it" - you'd have to ask.
But, this is part of your pattern of abuse - you take a position which is clearly legally wrong, and when everyone dismisses it, you go to Crystal and tell her they are clearly working against her because they aren't looking at the Felony Murder.
I ask again ... are you really this stupid, is this just part of your abuse of Crystal to get her to mistrust everyone else, or are you mentally ill?
There was a simple reason why nobody ever should have believed Crystal's ridiculous story of being gang raped in a bathroom that was too small during a time warp - more than 99% of interracial sexual assaults involve a black male raping a white female.Cases of white men raping black women are statistically nonexistent.
"Producing sharlogs, especially to the quality to which fans of this blog site are deserving and accustomed, is extremely energy and effort intensive."
By my count, you have 2 fans of this blog site -- Kenny and Anonymous(TinFoil).
Both are trolls. Consider that when you are extending your "energy and effort" to produce "quality" sharlogs.
You'd be better off just writing them.
I will admit the graphics and animation are often quality. The content is usually useless drivel.
Anonymous -- Flash is dead. Most devices can't even view Sid's graphics any longer. If he wanted to produce quality "sharlogs", he would've migrated to HTML5 when Adobe dropped it's mobile Flash support wayyy back in 2012-13.
mr. harr's comments on the last three days(October 14-15-16) have been his most insightful comments.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
There was a simple reason why nobody ever should have believed Crystal's ridiculous story of being gang raped in a bathroom that was too small during a time warp - more than 99% of interracial sexual assaults involve a black male raping a white female.Cases of white men raping black women are statistically nonexistent.
Conveniently, the Buchanan House has been razed, so no one will ever know about the bathroom.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
In the orders posted today, Sidney's writ was denied. Harr II is over. Sidney, when are you going to file Harr III?
Patience, my dear.
Anonymous said...
Sidney,
Now that your appeal to the Supreme Court is out of the way, you should concentrate on the NC State Bar. Have they responded to your letter from early last month? I know you expect that they will agree that your efforts on Crystal's PDR do not constitute the unlawful practice of law. No reasonable person could believe that the discussion of issues to be included in a fling and the drafting of the filing itself could possibly be regarded as violating your injunction.
I recommend that you contact them again asking for confirmation. You should also send them a copy of Mangum's filing.
I have not heard anything from the NC State Bar since I last wrote them, and feel no reason to contact them now. Besides, I have more important demands on my time.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Conveniently, the Buchanan House has been razed, so no one will ever know about the bathroom."
That was because the people who victimized the innocent falsely accused Lacrosse players did not want to leave evidence of their innocence.
Nifong Supporter said...
"I have not heard anything from the NC State Bar since I last wrote them, and feel no reason to contact them now. Besides, I have more important demands on my time."
Yes, like deluding yourself about crystal's guilt, and deluding yourself that anyone thinks you are a distinguished former physician.
You are trying to get crystal a pass for her crimes simply because of the color of her skin. And the only things which distinguish your medical career, or lack thereof, are that you were never accepted into residency training and never specialty achieved board certification. That is like Julius Streicher being distinguished by being jew baiter nuimber 1.
Patience, my dear.
Dr. Harr:
I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer, so I cannot give you legal advice. Nonetheless, I urge you not to sue Duke a third time-- doing so will end very badly for you.
I am not blowing smoke. If you go back to the blog post where you first posted your Complaint in Harr II, I immediately posted that it would be dismissed and that you would be sanctioned. Both of those things happened. I also correctly predicted the grounds upon which the suit would be dismissed. This is not because I am a genius or a prophet; any minimally-competent lawyer would have told you the same things, had you only asked.
Lawyers should not perform vasectomies; doctors should not draft lawsuits. Either of those things will result in a very messy outcome.
Trust me on this.
October 17, 2015 at 9:56 AM
It is because there is so little to 'do' in this area, that having the 'duke lacrosse case' house to make into a 'day trip' would be too much of a temptation for visitors to the area. By now it could have 'black lives matter' and 'duke sucks' vandalized into a impressive civil rights mural display all over it. Shame, eh?
No. Not a shame, eh.
W
H
E
R
E
I
S
K
E
N
H
Y
D
E
R
A
L
?
A Lawyer,
Why do you believe that Harr III would end badly for Sidney?
I think you misunderstand Sidney's motivation for filing lawsuits. He doesn't file lawsuits because he expects to win his suits. He files because he enjoys the process. It makes him feel important and provides another opportunity for him to tell a narrative.
The sanctions the court imposed in Harr II are a slap on the wrist. They have no teeth. The court didn't forbid Sidney from filing additional lawsuits. They simply ruled that Duke doesn't need to respond to any subsequent suit. As a result, Sidney will automatically lose if a court respects the prior ruling.
You must remember that Sidney's legal philosophy is such that there are no general rules that a court should apply. He thus rejects the view that a subsequent court would respect the prior ruling. Although he may not find that court in Harr III or Harr IV or Harr V, as long as a court does not impose real sanctions, such as jail time or fines, he has nothing to lose.
Where it began, I can't begin to knowing
But then I know it's growing strong
Was in the spring
And spring became the summer
Who'd have believed you'd come along
Hands, touching hands
Reaching out, touching me, touching you
Sweet Caroline
Good times never seemed so good
I'd be inclined
To believe they never would
But now I
Look at the night and it don't seem so lonely
We filled it up with only two
And when I hurt
Hurting runs off my shoulders
How can I hurt when I'm holding you
One, touching one
Reaching out, touching me, touching you
Sweet Caroline
Good times never seemed so good
I'd be inclined
To believe they never would
Oh no, no
Sweet Caroline
Good times never seemed so good
Sweet Caroline
I believe they never could
Sweet Caroline
Good times never seemed so good
Why do you believe that Harr III would end badly for Sidney?
Because if Dr. Harr files yet a third lawsuit based on the same conduct, I think the sanctions the court will impose will indeed be more onerous than last time.
A Lawyer,
Thank you for your reply.
I am willing to bet Sidney's freedom and money that you are wrong.
A Lawyer:
I point out that Sid recently prepared and filed a pleading on behalf of Mangum in her criminal appeal, in clear violation of the prohibition against practicing law without a license and while under an injunction prohibiting him from engaging in such conduct (due to a prior violation of the aforementioned prohibition). Thus far the courts and the Bar have been idle. If and when Sid files Harr III, the most the court will do is dismiss it sua sponte.
I believe courts and other bodies, like bar associations, are understandably reluctant to deny pro se litigants access to the courts. This reluctance certainly creates the potential for abuse of the system and can be exploited by people like Sid who have no respect for the law or the judicial system. However, I believe the courts and bar believe (rightfully so) that the harm caused by denying people access to the courts (even to people who may abuse that access) is greater than the harm created by frivolous and vexatious lawsuits.
While the courts and bar may eventually grow weary of Sid's antics and crack down on him, it is just as likely that they permit Sid to continue to file frivolous lawsuits and engage in the unauthorized practice of law until he it too old to do either, or unless Mangum files a complaint against him.
Frankly, I don't care whether the bar or the courts break bad on Sid. Duke deserves Sid's lawsuits and the only person who has been hurt by Sid's illicit law practice is Mangum.
That is just my two cents worth.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Patience, my dear.
Dr. Harr:
I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer, so I cannot give you legal advice. Nonetheless, I urge you not to sue Duke a third time-- doing so will end very badly for you.
I am not blowing smoke. If you go back to the blog post where you first posted your Complaint in Harr II, I immediately posted that it would be dismissed and that you would be sanctioned. Both of those things happened. I also correctly predicted the grounds upon which the suit would be dismissed. This is not because I am a genius or a prophet; any minimally-competent lawyer would have told you the same things, had you only asked.
Lawyers should not perform vasectomies; doctors should not draft lawsuits. Either of those things will result in a very messy outcome.
Trust me on this.
Hey, A Lawyer.
Thank you for the advice. I appreciate the concern. However, this is a matter of principles.
You trying to shake down Duke when they didn't break the law? You are an abuser, a shyster, and a conman ... You have no principles. If you did you wouldn't have done all you did in California and to Crystal, and the rest.
You are pathetic.
Oh, but you can still pretend felony murder applies cause you are mentally disturbed.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Thank you for the advice. I appreciate the concern. However, this is a matter of principles."
mr. harr again presumes a fact no in evidence, that he has principles.
Listen to me, baby, you gotta understand
You're old enough to know the makings of a man
Listen to me, baby, it's hard to settle down
Am I asking too much for you to stick around?
Every boy wants a girl
He can trust to the very end
Baby, that's you
Won't you wait? But 'til then
When I see lips beggin' to be kissed
(Stop)
I can't stop
(Stop)
I can't stop myself
(Stop, stop)
Lightning's striking again
Lightning's striking again
Nature's takin' over my one-track mind
Believe it or not, you're in my heart all the time
All the girls are sayin' that you'll end up a fool
For the time being, baby, live by my rules
When I settle down
I want one baby on my mind
Forgive and forget
And I'll make up for all lost time
If she's put together fine
And she's readin' my mind
(Stop)
I can't stop
(Stop)
I can't stop myself
(Stop, stop)
Lightning's striking again
Lightning's striking again
And again and again and again
Lightning's striking again
Lightning's striking again
There's a chapel in the pines
Waiting for us, around the bend
Picture in your mind
Love forever, but 'til then
If she gives me a sign
That she wants to make time
(Stop)
I can't stop
(Stop)
I can't stop myself
(Stop, stop)
Lightning's striking again
Lightning's striking again
And again and again and again
Lightning's striking again
And again and again and again
Abe wrote: "Frankly, I don't care whether the bar or the courts break bad on Sid. Duke deserves Sid's lawsuits and the only person who has been hurt by Sid's illicit law practice is Mangum."
Ding-Ding-Ding, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
Make no mistake, Sid has harmed Mangum at every opportunity and continues to do so.
Walt-in-Durham
I see this in Sid's future:
15-5712 MANKO, NELLA V. GABAY, DAVID A., ET AL.
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is
dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly
abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept
any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner
unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the
petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See
Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals
, 506 U. S. 1 (1992)
Anonymous said...
I see this in Sid's future:
15-5712 MANKO, NELLA V. GABAY, DAVID A., ET AL.
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is
dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly
abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept
any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner
unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the
petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See
Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals
, 506 U. S. 1 (1992)
Sorry, but this case is not relevant as he used forma pauperis in filing his cases. I pay to file cases with the court. Also, the Court left the door open for the Clerk to accept cases from the individual if he paid the docketing fee.
If I am mistaken, I am sure that Walt or A Lawyer can clear the air.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!
Just an update. I have completed Part One of my sharlog (it is ready to post), which is more than twice the size of Part Two. I will work diligently on Part Two and hope to have it completed in about two days.
As you were.
Sorry, but this case is not relevant as he used forma pauperis in filing his cases. I pay to file cases with the court.
Well, if you file again, after the Courts have said not to, you are abusing the process, but I'm glad you waste money on your crap.
If I am mistaken, I am sure that Walt or A Lawyer can clear the air.
You're not mistaken. The Manco case only applies to in forma pauperis filers.
The case isn't directly on point - but it does point out that you can be banned from filing if you continue to abuse the process.
Sadly for us, Sid's sanction is Duke doesn't have to respond to his foolish repetitive filings. The court will have to review and determine if Sid is raising a new cause of action. If so, then Duke will be obligated to respond, otherwise, the court will dismiss without requiring a response from Duke. Which really is too bad. Sid and Duke deserve each other.
This will probably not deter Sid from filing. He is, as one poster has noted, delusional. He suffers from a fixed false belief. His paranoia keeps him from accurately evaluating facts. Thus he continues to believe as true, things which are false. Further, his delusions are such that he acts on them. He publishes this blog repeating issues which have been debunked repeatedly.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
If I am mistaken, I am sure that Walt or A Lawyer can clear the air.
You're not mistaken. The Manco case only applies to in forma pauperis filers.
Hey, A Lawyer.
Thank you for your enlightenment on that issue. As I have always maintained, I have been prevented from having a trial in civil court not because my case is frivolous, but because it is meritorious. That's why Duke is fighting so hard to keep it from going to trial... the same way UNCW did to its professor Mike S. Adams. He fought for seven years before he was able to make it to the courtroom.
Walt said...
Sadly for us, Sid's sanction is Duke doesn't have to respond to his foolish repetitive filings. The court will have to review and determine if Sid is raising a new cause of action. If so, then Duke will be obligated to respond, otherwise, the court will dismiss without requiring a response from Duke. Which really is too bad. Sid and Duke deserve each other.
This will probably not deter Sid from filing. He is, as one poster has noted, delusional. He suffers from a fixed false belief. His paranoia keeps him from accurately evaluating facts. Thus he continues to believe as true, things which are false. Further, his delusions are such that he acts on them. He publishes this blog repeating issues which have been debunked repeatedly.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt,
In the near future when the day of judgment sides with Crystal Mangum, I fear that I may need to give you two crying towels.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!
Just an update... The next sharlog ("Obstruction of justice in the Mangum case")is nearly complete. Part One was finished on Monday. I am working hard to have Part Two completed by today or early tomorrow so that they can both be posted sometime on Thursday.
As you were.
Sid wrote: " As I have always maintained, I have been prevented from having a trial in civil court not because my case is frivolous, but because it is meritorious."
Another example of Sid's fixed false belief.
Walt-in-Durham
Nifong Supporter said...
"Thank you for your enlightenment on that issue. As I have always maintained, I have been prevented from having a trial in civil court not because my case is frivolous, but because it is meritorious."
Boy are you incredibly and delusionally stupid. It is a matter of res ipsa loquitur that you had no cause of action against Duke.
You sued Duke because you believed you could shake them down for millions of dollars.
Nifong Supporter said
"In the near future when the day of judgment sides with Crystal Mangum, I fear that I may need to give you two crying towels."
And again shows he is incredibly and delusionally stupid.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Just an update... The next sharlog ("Obstruction of justice in the Mangum case")is nearly complete."
mr. harr again presumes a fact not in evidence, that there wasa miscarriage of justice i the crystal mangum case.
As I have always maintained, I have been prevented from having a trial in civil court not because my case is frivolous, but because it is meritorious.
Every court, from the district court up to the Supreme Court, has said it is meritless. TWICE.
That's why Duke is fighting so hard to keep it from going to trial.
That fight is over. Where do you want your crying towel sent?
W
H
E
R
E
I
S
K
E
N
H
Y
D
E
R
A
L
?
Look, Sid, I know a dead lawsuit when I see one. Your lawsuit against Duke is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies. It's kicked the bucket. It's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible. IT IS AN EX-LAWSUIT!!
Mr. Praline
Bolton, England
Mr. Praline -- It's not dead, it's resting. It's pining for the fjords.
Just how intellectually impaired is mr. harr? He claims that the innocent Lacrosse players had no cause of action against Duke but yet Duke settled with them rather than go to trial. Now he claims Duke will not settle with him because his case against Duke has merit, and claims there is a grand conspiracy in the judicial system which goes all the way up to the Supreme Court to deny him his day in court because his suit has merit.
mr. harr claimed the mother o David Evans initiated the so called carpet bagger jihad against corrupt DA nifong when she said that he had picked on the wrong families and would be paying for it the rest of his life. Mrs. Evans made those remarks on 60 minutes AFTER the BC state Bar had concluded its investigation and filed ethics charges against nifong.
mr. harr has said in this blog that the DNA found on Crystal which did not match the DNA of the Lacrosse players was not exculpatory evidemce.
With regard t Shan Carter, Shan Carter's own testimony documents that he had provoked the confrontation with Tyrone Baker by robbing Baker's apartment, that Shan Carter was trying to conduct sales of illegal drugs when the confrontation happened, that Shan Carter fired at Tyrone Baker with an illegally possessed firearm and then Tyrone Baker fled, that Shan Carter pursued Tyrone Baker and continued to fire at him while Tyrone Baker was fleeing and dropped him while he was fleeing. In the course of pursuing Tyrone Baker while he was fleeing, Shan Carter shot and killed an 8 year old boy, an innocent bystander. mr. harr calls this self defense and that the death of Demetrius Green was just an unfortunate accident.
That is the kind of friend crystal has in mr. harr.
A Lawyer said...
As I have always maintained, I have been prevented from having a trial in civil court not because my case is frivolous, but because it is meritorious.
Every court, from the district court up to the Supreme Court, has said it is meritless. TWICE.
That's why Duke is fighting so hard to keep it from going to trial.
That fight is over. Where do you want your crying towel sent?
Hey, A Lawyer.
All I want is my day in court... just like Mike S. Adams. His lawsuit against UNCW was dismissed by a lower court, but reversed by the Court of Appeals, and after seven years of trying, he finally got to court and won in a jury trial.
Face it, Duke is fighting so hard (just like UNCW against Adams) because it knows I will prevail before a jury.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Look, Sid, I know a dead lawsuit when I see one. Your lawsuit against Duke is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies. It's kicked the bucket. It's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible. IT IS AN EX-LAWSUIT!!
Mr. Praline
Bolton, England
Hey, Mr. Praline.
Nice to get a commenter from across the pond. There are several individuals from Great Britain who are members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong.
Regarding my lawsuit, the bias of the state, courts, and media against me is as great as it is against Crystal Mangum. The question is, what is the harm in allowing me a trial by jury? Why should I be denied my day in court? Mike Adams had his day in court, after seven years of fighting to get a jury trial, and he won.
Cheerio.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Just how intellectually impaired is mr. harr? He claims that the innocent Lacrosse players had no cause of action against Duke but yet Duke settled with them rather than go to trial. Now he claims Duke will not settle with him because his case against Duke has merit, and claims there is a grand conspiracy in the judicial system which goes all the way up to the Supreme Court to deny him his day in court because his suit has merit.
mr. harr claimed the mother o David Evans initiated the so called carpet bagger jihad against corrupt DA nifong when she said that he had picked on the wrong families and would be paying for it the rest of his life. Mrs. Evans made those remarks on 60 minutes AFTER the BC state Bar had concluded its investigation and filed ethics charges against nifong.
mr. harr has said in this blog that the DNA found on Crystal which did not match the DNA of the Lacrosse players was not exculpatory evidemce.
With regard t Shan Carter, Shan Carter's own testimony documents that he had provoked the confrontation with Tyrone Baker by robbing Baker's apartment, that Shan Carter was trying to conduct sales of illegal drugs when the confrontation happened, that Shan Carter fired at Tyrone Baker with an illegally possessed firearm and then Tyrone Baker fled, that Shan Carter pursued Tyrone Baker and continued to fire at him while Tyrone Baker was fleeing and dropped him while he was fleeing. In the course of pursuing Tyrone Baker while he was fleeing, Shan Carter shot and killed an 8 year old boy, an innocent bystander. mr. harr calls this self defense and that the death of Demetrius Green was just an unfortunate accident.
That is the kind of friend crystal has in mr. harr.
Actually, your statements about Shan Carter are misleading. I won't get into the details now... have to go and work on the sharlog.
Sid asks: Why should I be denied my day in court?
Because you neglected to make a legal claim grounded in the law. If you don't make a valid legal claim,, you don't get a trial. The initial trial court told you that, but you refused to listen.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!
Actually an update on the sharlog. It had been my plan to post it today, however, I was forced to quit working on it last evening because my poor laptop was running slow and appeared to be overheated. Got a lot of work completed on it today, and could've possibly had it posted late this evening before the library closed. However, rather than rush it, I will take my time to perfect it prior to posting. With nothing unforeseeable, I believe the sharlog should be posted before noon tomorrow, Friday, the 23rd of October.
Sorry about the delay... but I'm sure you'll agree that it was well worth it.
As you were.
Duke isn't fighting hard - in fact, they didn't even waste their time filing a response to your filings at the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. They know it's a joke. The filed for Summary Judgment (standard in Civil suits), won, and then basically ignored you.
Sid - most Civil cases are resolved without a jury trial - you have to have merit to your case - you don't.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Hey, A Lawyer.
All I want is my day in court"
Except you do not deserve a day in court if you have no legitimate cause of action, and you don't
Nifong Supporter said...
"Actually, your statements about Shan Carter are misleading. I won't get into the details now... have to go and work on the sharlog."
No they're not. You admit that by refusing to deal with them.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Regarding my lawsuit, the bias of the state, courts, and media against me is as great as it is against Crystal Mangum."
Here is a misleading statement. There is no evidence of any bias of the state and courts against crystal mangum. Not giving her a pass for the crimes she has committed is not bias.
Nifong Supporter said...
"The question is, what is the harm in allowing me a trial by jury?"
No, the question is, are you entitled to a trial by jury? Since it is obvious you have no legitimate cause of action, no you are not.
That is sort of like saying crystal deserved her day in court because she falsely accused innocent men of raping her.
Hey mr. harr, are you saying if someone filed an obviously frivolous lawsuit against you, that person would be entitled to have that case tried in court?
W
H
E
R
E
I
S
K
E
N
H
Y
D
E
R
A
L
?
I'M LOOKING FOR YOU.
WHERE ARE YOU?
Sid said:
"All I want is my day in court."
You got your day in court. Twice. Your lawsuit was dismissed both times. The dismissals were upheld on appeal. You've gotten more days in court in your bogus lawsuits against Duke than many people have in a lifetime.
You are confusing getting your day in court with having a trial. You don't get to have a trial unless you can show you have a valid claim, grounded in the facts and law.
I hope you are elucidated.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Sid said:
"The question is, what is the harm in allowing me a trial by jury?"
The harm is that a defendant you have no case against and has done no harm to you under the law is forced to go to the time, expense, inconvenience and stress of defending themselves against frivolous and meritless charges.
The harm is the waste of judicial resources, paid for by the public, to hear a meritless case.
The harm is to parties with cognizable claims whose cases will be delayed so you can have a trial on a baseless and frivolous claim.
The harm is to the jurors who will need to take time away from work and their families because you are angry at Duke.
Courts and trials are for people with legitimate controversies that need to be resolved. They are not the place for every crank with a grievance to vent their frustrations before a captive audience.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Abe wrote: "Courts and trials are for people with legitimate controversies that need to be resolved. They are not the place for every crank with a grievance to vent their frustrations before a captive audience."
Ding-Ding-Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!
Well said, Abe, well said.
Walt-in-Durham
The problem, Sidney, is that you've somehow acquired a reputation for suing absolutely everyone for any assumed slight. I don't particularly like Duke, and if anything I would be happy to see you get something from them, but I can understand that they are simply not going to spend more time defending against you. So they just got a summary judgment. Your reputation helped them in this.
His reputation didn't affect anything - outside of this blog and a handful of others, Sid has no "reputation." His ego is such he keeps asking folks if they've heard of him and his blog ... NO, they haven't.
He's a sad little narcissist that no one cares about.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!
Just an update. For all intents and purposes, the sharlog is complete. A slow computer made an attempt to post the sharlog today not practical... therefore, rather than rush it, I will post the sharlog tomorrow as soon as the library opens at ten in the morning... Saturday, the 24th. There are still a few things that need to be completed, such as estimating the running time, etc.
The energy required to produce an interesting and innovative sharlog is enormous, and these days, my appetite for such work on the computer has waned. In addition, other activities, such as letter writing, have occupied much of my time and attention.
Anyway, I can pretty much give you a Joe Namath guarantee that the next sharlog on "Obstruction of justice" will be posted by noon tomorrow. Again, sorry for the delay.
As you were.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Anyway, I can pretty much give you a Joe Namath guarantee that the next sharlog on 'Obstruction of justice' will be posted by noon tomorrow. Again, sorry for the delay."
You are the only one whois.
The question is, what is the harm in allowing me a trial by jury? Why should I be denied my day in court?
You had your day in court. Twice. And lost both times.
Juries decide disputed questions of fact. Judges decide questions of law. Which is a good thing, or else we'd still have segregation in the South.
Duke's motions to dismiss were granted because, even if every fact you alleged were true, you would still not have a claim.
If I sued you for violating my constitutional rights by wearing green pants, would I be entitled to a jury trial? Why or why not?
It depends. Did you get escorted off Duke campus, who also happens to provide legal services in and to the Duke/Durham/NC in-justice system, AND questionable medical services that allows Duke to kill at whim, backed up by a state medical examiner system and DA's sub-servant to Duke for some ungodly reason who enables Duke to kill at whim any patient they target through the Duke/Durham/NC in-justice system ... (all for wearing green pants to their blue university)? ???
If so, did you then wonder what might happen to you if you showed up in the Duke ER with your green pants on? ???
Would they escort you out of their hospital ER room - or just kill you because they had/have a whimsical fantasy about NO one in world ever wearing green pants again! Ever!
" Anonymous said...
It depends. Did you get escorted off Duke campus, who also happens to provide legal services in and to the Duke/Durham/NC in-justice system, AND questionable medical services that allows Duke to kill at whim, backed up by a state medical examiner system and DA's sub-servant to Duke for some ungodly reason who enables Duke to kill at whim any patient they target through the Duke/Durham/NC in-justice system ... (all for wearing green pants to their blue university)? ???
If so, did you then wonder what might happen to you if you showed up in the Duke ER with your green pants on? ???
Would they escort you out of their hospital ER room - or just kill you because they had/have a whimsical fantasy about NO one in world ever wearing green pants again! Ever!
October 24, 2015 at 2:51 AM"
This post suggests that it is something either mr. harr or kenny hisssy fit composed and posted anonymously in order to crete the illusion that their incredibly and viciously stupid views have suppport.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
It depends. Did you get escorted off Duke campus, who also happens to provide legal services in and to the Duke/Durham/NC in-justice system, AND questionable medical services that allows Duke to kill at whim, backed up by a state medical examiner system and DA's sub-servant to Duke for some ungodly reason who enables Duke to kill at whim any patient they target through the Duke/Durham/NC in-justice system ... (all for wearing green pants to their blue university)? ???
If so, did you then wonder what might happen to you if you showed up in the Duke ER with your green pants on? ???
Would they escort you out of their hospital ER room - or just kill you because they had/have a whimsical fantasy about NO one in world ever wearing green pants again! Ever!
October 24, 2015 at 2:51 AM
This post suggests that it is something either mr. harr or kenny hisssy fit composed and posted anonymously in order to crete the illusion that their incredibly and viciously stupid views have suppport.
October 24, 2015 at 3:50 AM
This reply to the original post suggests that the responding poster is not fully aware of the realities of Duke and its evil ways, and thinks that if they imitate duke's evil ways they can fool others into believing that the realities of duke's evil ways is somehow 'right' or 'legal' or even 'allowed' by civil rights laws, or they are just demonstrating well their entitled, hateful, blind ignorance.
Sid, Who is this chap they call kenhyderal?
Mr. Praline
Bolton, England
" Anonymous said...
Anonymous Anonymous said...
It depends. Did you get escorted off Duke campus, who also happens to provide legal services in and to the Duke/Durham/NC in-justice system, AND questionable medical services that allows Duke to kill at whim, backed up by a state medical examiner system and DA's sub-servant to Duke for some ungodly reason who enables Duke to kill at whim any patient they target through the Duke/Durham/NC in-justice system ... (all for wearing green pants to their blue university)? ???
If so, did you then wonder what might happen to you if you showed up in the Duke ER with your green pants on? ???
Would they escort you out of their hospital ER room - or just kill you because they had/have a whimsical fantasy about NO one in world ever wearing green pants again! Ever!
October 24, 2015 at 2:51 AM
This post suggests that it is something either mr. harr or kenny hisssy fit composed and posted anonymously in order to crete the illusion that their incredibly and viciously stupid views have suppport.
October 24, 2015 at 3:50 AM
This reply to the original post suggests that the responding poster is not fully aware of the realities of Duke and its evil ways, and thinks that if they imitate duke's evil ways they can fool others into believing that the realities of duke's evil ways is somehow 'right' or 'legal' or even 'allowed' by civil rights laws, or they are just demonstrating well their entitled, hateful, blind ignorance.
October 24, 2015 at 4:53 AM"
Another iteration of mr.harr and/or kenny hissy fit posting something anonymously trying to create the illusion they have support for their views.
October 24, 2015 at 6:28 AM
That post isn't meant for support for anything, it is a statement of reality - one that you refuse to see or acknowledge because it doesn't fit in with your duke centered views - be they evil or not - as long as 'others' are harmed (especially Ms. Mangum and blacks, or others protected by civil rights 'laws').
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
October 24, 2015 at 6:28 AM
That post isn't meant for support for anything, it is a statement of reality - one that you refuse to see or acknowledge because it doesn't fit in with your duke centered views - be they evil or not - as long as 'others' are harmed (especially Ms. Mangum and blacks, or others protected by civil rights 'laws').
October 24, 2015 at 6:57 AM"
Another iteration of mr. harr and/or kenny hssy it posting anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.
UBES AND THE LIESTOPPER CRANKS JUST KEEP ON ROLLING.
QUACK
QUACK
QUACK
SPIN UBES SPIN
QUACK
I'm proud to call UBES my friend.
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
The question is, what is the harm in allowing me a trial by jury? Why should I be denied my day in court?
You had your day in court. Twice. And lost both times.
Juries decide disputed questions of fact. Judges decide questions of law. Which is a good thing, or else we'd still have segregation in the South.
Duke's motions to dismiss were granted because, even if every fact you alleged were true, you would still not have a claim.
If I sued you for violating my constitutional rights by wearing green pants, would I be entitled to a jury trial? Why or why not?
A Lawyer, Duke University's defense is that it is a private institution (although it receives millions of federal tax dollars in gifts) and therefore it has the legal right to discriminate. It surely doesn't deny that it discriminated against me... only that they are legally permitted to do so. Do you believe that is a reasonable defense?
Somebody please explain what are ubes.
I believe North Carolina is controlled by the Ku Klux Klan. Black women and girls are tagged by white Klan groups for lucrative sex slavery rackets. White boys are taught that rape, sexual murder and abuse of Black girls is socially approved and protected, by gentlemen's agreement of both White and Black society. Whites use black males as middlemen(pimps), who get lots of under the table, untaxed money from rackets using Black women and girls as sex slaves, or low paid prostitutes.A white jock in the Duke case had written of skinning a sex slave alive and raping her as she died. He was no sweet innocent, white boy victimized by a black vixen.
Black women who rebel, who fight abuse, who report white KKK jocks to the KKK controlled(black or white) police are punished. This usually consists of being beaten senseless, or killed, or set up by paid black KKK 'boys' and KKK 'gals', sent to make an example of the uppedity black woman. Should their 'boy'fail at this, the out of line black woman is set up for malicious prosecution in a legal lynching by the totally KKK controlled criminal justice system.
Seems the KKK treated their 'boy' like a slave too, since they killed him to get her.
This is one of the ways whites extended slavery beyond 1865, and created new forms of black slavery which exist now. It is also how they enforce silence among blacks of brutal abuse of Black women in the lucrative sexual slavery industry, much ofit fronted by black middlemen, but controlled by KKK whites behind the scenes.
Post a Comment