The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, January 5, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, January 1, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, December 29, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, December 19, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, December 11, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Wednesday, December 9, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, December 3, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, November 27, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, November 21, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, November 12, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Monday, November 9, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, November 7, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, November 5, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Monday, October 26, 2015
1,745 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 1745 Newer› Newest»Sid asks: Is there a reference where Duke allegedly prevented students from wearing anti-Nifong shirts? I am unaware of such an incident or school policy to support such. I would like a reference to enlighten me on this issue. Thanks.
This was discussed on this blog at the time duke filed its response in Harr I. You should be aware of the discussion.
Sid has been silent ... he just biding his time until the Supreme Court denies the PDR on Friday?
But, question Sid: If they do grant the PDR, and so they allow the appeal to go forward - will you draft Crystal's brief for her, or will you look for an attorney to help her?
You are aware, are you not, that all the Supreme Court is deciding now is whether to review the Court of Appeals decision or not - nothing else about the case.
Anonymous said: "You do not know what courage is"........................ Written by a cowardly anonymous poster
" kenhyderal said...
Anonymous said: "You do not know what courage is"........................ Written by a cowardly anonymous poster
November 4, 2015 at 1:28 PM"
This from kenny hissy fit who thinks courage is accusing innocent men of a crime which never happened and advocating that his favorite murderess/false accuser should get a pass for her crimes.
He probably thinks kilgo's non existent lacrosse player friend is the epitome of courage.
Kenhyderal, please get lkj;l,
Kenhyderal, pay no attention to the man who claims to be Kilgo. Kilgo is in no position to communicate with you.
For one, I don't even consider Duke University to be "private" in many respects as it accepts federal and taxpayer monies.
Dr. Harr,
You accept federal and taxpayer moneys (including Social security, subsidized housing, etc.). Does that mean I have the right to barge into your apartment without your consent?
j;lj;lij;lkj;l
A Lawyer,
More directly on point: Sidney uses the internet provided at the library to work on his blog. I suppose that means that his blog is also required to guarantee First Amendment rights. Many court cases have repeatedly held that most hate speech is protected speech. That means that Sidney violated the civil rights of those posters whose racist or childish chanting posts he removed.
Anonymous said...
Sid has been silent ... he just biding his time until the Supreme Court denies the PDR on Friday?
But, question Sid: If they do grant the PDR, and so they allow the appeal to go forward - will you draft Crystal's brief for her, or will you look for an attorney to help her?
You are aware, are you not, that all the Supreme Court is deciding now is whether to review the Court of Appeals decision or not - nothing else about the case.
I may have been silent, but definitely not biding my time. In addition to writing letters I have produced a post about my lawsuit which I will upload shortly. With regard to the PDR, if a new review is called for do not expect Crystal to seek legal help to draft any briefs she may file. Ideally there would be a computer and printer available for her to draft her own brief. I have offered to purchase a laptop, printer, paper, and software to enable inmates at NCCIW to produce their own legal documents, but to date I have not heard back from the warden.
It is my hope, of course, that the NC Supreme Court overturns the murder conviction and frees Mangum... thereby not wasting anymore taxpayer money.
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
For one, I don't even consider Duke University to be "private" in many respects as it accepts federal and taxpayer monies.
Dr. Harr,
You accept federal and taxpayer moneys (including Social security, subsidized housing, etc.). Does that mean I have the right to barge into your apartment without your consent?
Hey, A Lawyer.
If I have a license to hold a block party and advertise that the public is invited, I don't have the right to discriminate against you. Barging into my house without my permission or consent is trespassing, and that's against the law... irrespective of whether or not I receive federal and taxpayer money.
The Supreme Court cannot do what you ask based on the law and the filings before it. Why do you keep present things might happen that legally can't? And do you still lie to Crystsl about the possibilities?
Nifong Supporter said...
"If I have a license to hold a block party and advertise that the public is invited, I don't have the right to discriminate against you."
I say this is non responsive to the question, not surprising considering your propensity for draggin in red herrings.
In any event, Duke did not discriminate against you. You violated Duke's non solicitation policy and then picked a fight with a security guard who told you to stop. That is clear from the audio clip you posted.
It is only illegal to discriminate on the basis of race age gender ethnicity disability national origin or religion. I can have a block party, say the public is invited, and still kick out all Duke fans.
Sid again refuses to learn the law.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Barging into my house without my permission or consent is trespassing, and that's against the law... irrespective of whether or not I receive federal and taxpayer money."
Interesting attitude in view of what happened in the Shan Carter case. Shan Carter precipitated the confrontation with Tyrone Baker by barging into Baker's apartment and robbing it. But you think Carter should get a pass for killing Tyrone Baker and Demetrius Greene.
The law is, if you cause the confrontation and then kill the person who went after you, you can not unvoke self defense.
Another example of how you believe one of your favorite people should get a pass for murder.
mr. harr:
How arrogantly smug you are.
You like to think of yourself as a distinguished retired physician, even though you were never accepted into any residency training program and never achieved any specialty board certification.
Worse, you hold yourself above the law, and you believe you can designate convicted murderers to be above the law.
mr. harr:
Another example of your arrogance:
After the incident at Duke in which you violated Duke's non solicitation policy and picked a fight with a security guard, you thought:
The Duke Lacrosse players shook down Duke for millions even though they had no legitimate cause of action. Oh boy. Now I can shake downDuke for millions of dollars.
Yes, folks.
mr. sidney harr, who imagines himself to be a distinguished former physician, calls it a crusade for justice his attempts to get convicted murderers passes for their crimes.
He also calls his attempts to shake down Duke for millions a crusade for justice.
Anonymous 3:10:
Like Sidney, you misstate the law as it relates to self-defense.
Even though Shan Carter "caused the confrontation" with Tyrone Baker when days earlier he broke into Baker's apartment and stole thousands of dollars, he did not forever forfeit his rights of self-defense. If Carter reasonably feared for his life when Baker sucker punched Carter's drug dealing colleague, Carter had the right to defend himself. At that point, Baker initiated that confrontation. Carter attempted this defense, claiming he thought Baker had a gun, and, after reviewing the evidence, the jury rejected it.
What is absolutely clear is that Carter's ability to claim self-defense ended when Baker retreated and ran away. When Carter fired at Baker, who was retreating down a crowded street, he committed a crime. Although I have no doubt that Carter did not intend to kill an innocent little boy, the killing of a bystander while in the act of committing another felony is murder.
Even in Sid's new letter - he still completely discredits everything he wants to accomplish by continuing to erroneously cite the Felony Murder Rule - which is completely inapplicable to this case. The Larceny of Chose in Action could not be used for felony murder. The statutes and cases have been shown to Sid, he refuses to learn.
Sid is either mentally ill, or intentionally bringing up things he knows are wrong.
Which is it Sid?
Kenny - why does Sid keep bringing up felony murder? All it does is show to everyone with even basic knowledge that he's simply wrong on a very basic piece of law - so why should they trust his analysis on anything?
"Anonymous said...
Anonymous 3:10:
Like Sidney, you misstate the law as it relates to self-defense.
"Even though Shan Carter "caused the confrontation" with Tyrone Baker when days earlier he broke into Baker's apartment and stole thousands of dollars, he did not forever forfeit his rights of self-defense. If Carter reasonably feared for his life when Baker sucker punched Carter's drug dealing colleague, Carter had the right to defend himself. At that point, Baker initiated that confrontation."
You have got it wrong. The law is clear. If you precipitate a confrontation, if you kill the person who confronts you, you do not have a case for self defense. Had Shan Carter not broken into Baker's apartment and robbed him, would he have had reason to fear for his life? He did have the option of going to the Police, admitting thebreak on, turning over to the Police the money he had stolen(which was money Baker had gottenfrom dealing drugs), and asked for protection.
"Carter attempted this defense, claiming he thought Baker had a gun, and, after reviewing the evidence, the jury rejected it."
By Carter's own admission, he fired two shots at Tyrone Baker who then turned and fled. That is evidence that Baker was not armed. Carter pursued him and continued shooting at him. Once Baker had fled, Carter could not claim self defense as justification for pursuing him. mr. harr claimed that Baker was hit by Carter's first two shots. Carter was armed with a .357 Magnum. Baker had slugs from Carter's gun in his chest and his leg. Look up .357 Magnum. A man with a .357 magnum slug in his leg and in his chest is not going to be able to flee. Carter shot Baker while Baker was retreating. That was not self defense.
"What is absolutely clear is that Carter's ability to claim self-defense ended when Baker retreated and ran away. When Carter fired at Baker, who was retreating down a crowded street, he committed a crime."
Nice that you admit that. You do not admit that Carter was in the act of committing two crimes before the confrontation happened. He was dealing drugs. And he was armed with his .357 Magnum. As a convicted felon, Carter was forbidden to carry a gun. Would the deaths have occurred had Carter obeyed the law, refrained from dealing drugs, and refrained from carrying an illegally possessed firearm. And we get back to the original provocation. Carter would have been in no danger from Baker had he not broken into and robbed Baker's apartment in the first place.
"Although I have no doubt that Carter did not intend to kill an innocent little boy, the killing of a bystander while in the act of committing another felony is murder."
You got that right. The fact that Carter did not intend to kill Demetrius Green while he was pursuing Baker after Baker had fled and was shooting at him with an illegally possessed firearm is irrelevant.
Anonymous said...
"Sid is either mentally ill, or intentionally bringing up things he knows are wrong."
The one thing mr.harr consistently gets wrong is his description of crystal as the"victim/accuser" in the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax.
It has been proven beyond any and all doubt that crystal lied about being raped and accused innocent men.
That makes her the Duke Lacrosse hoax victmiizer/false accuser.
mr. harr believes he is above the law and that by decree he can get passes for murderers he likes for their crimes.
Anonymous 5:41:
No, I do not have it wrong. You appear to make the same mistake as Sidney, apparently claiming that the aggressor in initiating a confrontation remains the aggressor throughout the entire confrontation (which apparently lasts until one of the parties is dead). In reality, the aggressor can change.
If Baker had a gun when he approached Carter and shot and killed him, he would be guilty of murder. The fact that Carter had robbed him days earlier would not have permitted him to claim self-defense because Carter had earlier caused the confrontation. At that point, Baker had become the aggressor.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anonymous 5:41:
"No, I do not have it wrong. You appear to make the same mistake as Sidney, apparently claiming that the aggressor in initiating a confrontation remains the aggressor throughout the entire confrontation (which apparently lasts until one of the parties is dead). In reality, the aggressor can change."
The law is, if a provokes a violent confrontation with b and kills b, then a does not have a case for self defense. Had Shan Carter not broken into Tyrone Baker's apartment and robbed him, there would have been no confrontation. Shan Carter provoked the confrontation. Whoever was the initial aggressor is irrelevant. Shan Carter never had a case for self defense. You did get it wrong.
"If Baker had a gun when he approached Carter and shot and killed him, he would be guilty of murder."
Irrelevant. There was no evidence that Tyrone Baker was armed. Witnesses said Baker was not armedseehttp://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-supreme-court/1339721.html). No gun was ever found on Baker's person. mr. harr's statement, that he could have had a gun but that someone had removed it, has no legal significance. If Shan Carter wanted a pass for self defense, he would have had to prove Baker was armed. It is called an affirmative defense. The burden of proof rests with the person making the affirmative defense.
"The fact that Carter had robbed him days earlier would not have permitted him to claim self-defense because Carter had earlier caused the confrontation. At that point, Baker had become the aggressor."
When did anyone ever try to argue that Tyrone Baker could have acted in self defense? Irrelevant argument.
The valid points are, 1) Shan Carter prvoked the confrontation, 2) Shan Carter was perpetrating two crimes when the confrontation took place, dealing illegal drugs and carrying an illegally possessed firearm, 3) Baker fled when Shan Carter fired, indicating he was not armed, undermining Carter's claim that he had a reason to fear for his life, and4) Carter gunned down Baker with an illegally possessed firearm while Baker was fleeing.
From he outset, there was no case for self defense for Shan Carter.
November 5, 2015 at 6:38 AM
Sid and Kenny ... why do you continue to show your inability to learn and your ignorance by bringing up Felony Murder - which was never applicable, and was not even included in the jury instructions. It was not a possibility in this trial. Your refusal to acknowledge that just shows this is all about abuse of Crystal, and not a genuine desire to help.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
STATEMENTS OF ENLIGHTENMENT!
I am hopeful we will soon be able to devote more time discussing the Shan Carter case with my strong belief that Crystal Mangum's conviction will soon be overturned and she set free.
Regarding Carter, here is some information about that case. After Shan and two accomplices burglarized Tyrone Baker's apartment and made off with $40,000.00, Baker made it public knowledge throughout the community that he intended to find those responsible and kill them. So the threat was on the streets and Shan was aware of it long before the encounter.
On that fateful day, after Baker sucker punched Shan's friend and one of the accomplices, he approached Shan with a heavy army coat draped over his hand... Shan thought it concealed a gun.
Shan fired two shoots initially, both of them striking Baker who turned and ran away. Shan followed a short distance in order to keep Baker from using the corner of the building for cover from which to return fire. The reason Shan shot in the general direction three or four additional times was to goad Baker into continuing his flight and allow Shan to get in his car and drive away. None of these shots struck Baker... as was determined forensically.
These facts should be kept in mind when constructing your scenarios of what happened.
As you were.
When will it be overturned? Even if the Supreme Court takes the case, it will be about a year before she gets a hearing. You know that, right?
Nifong Supporter said...
"Regarding Carter, here is some information about that case. After Shan and two accomplices burglarized Tyrone Baker's apartment and made off with $40,000.00, Baker made it public knowledge throughout the community that he intended to find those responsible and kill them. So the threat was on the streets and Shan was aware of it long before the encounter."
Shan Carter took $35,ooo. You admit that crime, actually a felony, perpetrated by Shan Carter precipitated the conflict. You did say earlier that if someone broke into your apartment it would be illegal. You seem oblivious to the fact that Shan Carter broke into Tyrone Baker's apartment. Another example of your belief that your friend should get passes for their crimes. If the threat was on the street, why did Shan Carter not go to the police for protection? Because he wanted to keep his stolen money and not suffer for it? That does not change the fact that Shan Carter, via the perpetration of the felony, precipitated the conflict.
"On that fateful day, after Baker sucker punched Shan's friend and one of the accomplices, he approached Shan with a heavy army coat draped over his hand... Shan thought it concealed a gun."
You omit, probably deliberately, that Shan Carter, convicted felon, was dealing drugs at the time and packing an illegally possessed firearm, both felonies. He was not minding his business. He was perpetrating crimes.
"Shan fired two shoots initially, both of them striking Baker who turned and ran away."
Wrong. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-supreme-court/1339721.html: "As Baker approached, defendant retreated, pulled a chrome .357 caliber revolver from under his jacket, and began shooting. Defendant testified that he POINTED HIS GUN TOWARDS THE GROUND(emphasis added) and intended only to force Baker away so that defendant could get to his car and leave." Shan Carter did not aim at Tyrone Baker. He did not hit Tyrone Baker with his first two shots. Carter's illegally possessed weapon was a .357 magnum. Baker was found to have a slug from Carter's gun in his thigh and a slug from Carter's gun in his chest. Baker could not have taken those two hits from a .357 magnum and then kept on running. He would have been dropped immediately. Only a thoroughly untrained, inexperienced person who happens to have an MD degree, that is the only type of physician who would try to perpetrate the lie that Carter hit him with his first two shots.
"Shan followed a short distance in order to keep Baker from using the corner of the building for cover from which to return fire. The reason Shan shot in the general direction three or four additional times was to goad Baker into continuing his flight and allow Shan to get in his car and drive away. None of these shots struck Baker... as was determined forensically."
That was not determined forensically. That was determined by mr harr, the thoroughly untrained, inexperienced medical school graduate who had no forensic experience. Shan Carter pursued and kept firing at Tyrone Baker after Baker had demonstrated he was not armed and had fled.
"These facts should be kept in mind when constructing your scenarios of what happened."
They are not facts. They are figments of your imagination, a reflection of your belief that this murderer of two peo;le whom you have befriended should get a pass for his crimes.
If anyone wants the facts of the case, go to http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-supreme-court/1339721.html. mr. harr. the thoroughly untrained, thoroughly inesperienced person with an MD after his name obviously has not. Not surprising since mr. harr has never dealt in facts on this blog.
Anonymous at 3:09 AM wrote: "Sid again refuses to learn the law."
That is the theme of this blog. Well put, Anon.
Walt-in-Durham
Sid wrote: "I am hopeful we will soon be able to devote more time discussing the Shan Carter case with my strong belief that Crystal Mangum's conviction will soon be overturned and she set free."
Another example of Sid's fixed false belief.
"Regarding Carter, here is some information about that case. After Shan and two accomplices burglarized Tyrone Baker's apartment and made off with $40,000.00, Baker made it public knowledge throughout the community that he intended to find those responsible and kill them. So the threat was on the streets and Shan was aware of it long before the encounter."
Another reason to keep Carter in prison. We don't want people burglarizing other people.
"On that fateful day, after Baker sucker punched Shan's friend and one of the accomplices, he approached Shan with a heavy army coat draped over his hand... Shan thought it concealed a gun."
If Carter had a concealed carry permit, those facts might have been justification to think about using a weapon. Under NC law, deadly force is justified to protect the lives of other people. NCGS 14-51.3 But, he wasn't lawfully armed. In fact Carter was prohibited from owning or possessing firearms of any type.
"Shan fired two shoots initially, both of them striking Baker who turned and ran away."
Not quite. The facts found by the jury show that Carter fired at the ground and he was not sure if either of those shots hit Baker. From the court: "Defendant testified that he pointed his gun towards the ground and intended only to force Baker away so that defendant could get to his car and leave." At that point, I think Carter was within the protection of NCGS 14-51.3(b) had it been applicable at the time. As 14-51.3(b) really just codifies common law in NC, I think Carter's first shot was arguably legal. Carter's problem, and thus his conviction comes from what happened next. "After defendant fired the first shot, Baker turned and ran around the corner, moving down 10th Street." The common law and 14-51.3(b) do not allow pursuit. But, Carter gave pursuit. Even Sid admits: "Shan followed a short distance in order to keep Baker from using the corner of the building for cover from which to return fire." The actual facts of the case are worse. Carter testified: "[Baker] ran and I went behind him shooting at him." Sid goes on to claim: "None of these shots struck Baker... as was determined forensically." Actually, they did. Two of the shots struck him and killed Baker. one shot struck poor Demitrius Greene and killed him too. The key fact to keep in mind is Carter shot and killed an innocent kid.
Sid compounded his error writing: "These facts should be kept in mind when constructing your scenarios of what happened." Sid the facts are easily found in the Supreme Court opinion and the trial transcript. You keep making things up and that diminishes your credibility.
Walt-in-Durham
No decision from the Supreme Court on the PDR. Next decision date is December 16.
As a reminder - the Supreme Court can only Grant, or Deny the PDR. If they grant it, then the appeal moves forward, there are briefs and oral arguments sometime in the next 12 months or so. They cannot, and will not, issue any opinion on the case, or overturn any conviction.
Crystal still has a long way to go. And that's assuming that they grant the PDR, which is very unlikely.
Dr. Harr,
What basis do you have for your claim that Duke engaged in "judge shopping" in your lawsuit? Are you aware of how judges are assigned to cases in federal court?
Of course he isn't. He thinks there was/is something sinister about it being Greensboro, not Durham - and that was somehow shopping - he probably is clueless that Greensboro is the seat for the Middle District of North Carolina - and where the Federal Court runs.
In mr. harr's latest screed about his frivolous lawsuit against Duke, he again resorts to misrepresentation. He claims Provessor Coleman is his friend. That is doubtful. He claims that Professor Coleman intervened with the security guard to prevent mr. harr's arrest. Listen to the audio clip mr. harr posted. mr. harr tried to drag an unwilling Professsor Colemanint the fray.
What else can one wexpect from mr. harr except deception, mr. harr who tries to pass himsoelf off as a retired physician when all he was was a minimally trained minimally experienced graduate of the Medical School at the University of Oregon.
I apologize to the MedicalSchool at the University of Oregon for exposing them to embarrassment. However, the truth must be made known.
You are the one who should be embarrassed. Oregon Health Sciences University is ranked 5th nation wide in Primary Care. Duke, incidentally, is 29th in that category.
kenhyderal said...
"You are the one who should be embarrassed. Oregon Health Sciences University is ranked 5th nation wide in Primary Care. Duke, incidentally, is 29th in that category.
November 6, 2015 at 3:41 PM"
Why? I did not graduate from that place which granted a medical degree to mr.harr, who ended up wasting his education to devote himself to filing and losing frivolous lawsuits.
Anonymous November 6, 2015 at 2:07 PM
Watch it.
Kenhyderal is trying to stone you to death with popcorn at a distance of 500 yards.
Kenny,
When are you going to answer the questions you have been asked?
Hey, kennyu hissy fit
Do you really think the Medical School at the University is not embarrassed that one of its graduates was never acceepted into residency training, never achieved board certification, and retired from medicine less than 20 years after graduation, bankrupt after filing and losing multiple frivolous lawsuits.
Well, that is the cv of mr. harr, whom you have described as a distinguished retired physician.
Right on kenhyderal.
I'm proud to call kenhyderal my friend.
Kenhyderal,
No one suggested that the OHSU was a bad medical school. What was said was that a good school such as OHSU might be embarrassed by the poor publicity that one of their graduates might be giving them.
You, of course, try to find something to criticize in what the posters here (other than Sidney and Tinfoil) say.
Shame on you!!
Sidney,
Can you post the transcript for Crystal's trial? Your readers can help you find inconsistencies.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
In mr. harr's latest screed about his frivolous lawsuit against Duke, he again resorts to misrepresentation. He claims Provessor Coleman is his friend. That is doubtful. He claims that Professor Coleman intervened with the security guard to prevent mr. harr's arrest. Listen to the audio clip mr. harr posted. mr. harr tried to drag an unwilling Professsor Colemanint the fray.
What else can one wexpect from mr. harr except deception, mr. harr who tries to pass himsoelf off as a retired physician when all he was was a minimally trained minimally experienced graduate of the Medical School at the University of Oregon.
I apologize to the MedicalSchool at the University of Oregon for exposing them to embarrassment. However, the truth must be made known.
The Oregon Health Sciences University is, as was pointed out by kenhyderal, an outstanding facility with a well deserved reputation. Certainly the institution has nothing to be embarrassed about with respect to graduating me. It just so happened that the Supreme Being had plans for me other than being an outstanding physician. Undoubtedly he foresaw that the legal system in North Carolina would go corrupt with widespread racial disparity, so I was deemed the Chosen One and my life was filled with experiences including legal engagements that prepared me to be able to now act as rectifier with regards to Crystal Mangum's plight... as well as Shan Carter's and others. Had it not been for those other lawsuits in my past, which is akin to Jedi training, I would not be able to effectively advocate for Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum, and others who are egregiously mistreated by the legal system in North Carolina.
My path was paved for me by the Supreme Being long before I ever went to college, and my medical training at OHSU has enabled me to recognize the problems with the medical examiner's autopsy report and understand what transpired at Duke University Hospital that resulted in Daye's death.
I was destined to follow the path that led me to be a lay advocate and help save a legal system in North Carolina that has been corrupted and hijacked.
Let me know if further edification is required.
Nifong Supporter said...
"The Oregon Health Sciences University is, as was pointed out by kenhyderal, an outstanding facility with a well deserved reputation. Certainly the institution has nothing to be embarrassed about with respect to graduating me. It just so happened that the Supreme Being had plans for me other than being an outstanding physician. Undoubtedly he foresaw that the legal system in North Carolina would go corrupt with widespread racial disparity, so I was deemed the Chosen One".
Nothing more than a bullshit attempt to avoid explaining why you were never accepted into any residency program and never achieved board certification, why you were a thorough failure as a physician.
Falsely accusing innocent men of committing a rape which never happened, and trying to get a murderess/false accuser and a murderer a pass for their crimes and trying to shake down Duke for a big settlement is hardly the Lord's work.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Had it not been for those other lawsuits in my past, which is akin to Jedi training, I would not be able to effectively advocate for Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum, and others who are egregiously mistreated by the legal system in North Carolina."
You assume two facts not in evidence.
You have never advocated effectively for anyone.
Neither corrupt da nifong nor murderess/false accuser crystal have been mistreated by the legal system in North Carolina.
Nifong Supporter said...
"I was destined to follow the path that led me to be a lay advocate and help save a legal system in North Carolina that has been corrupted and hijacked."
Well, you got it right that the North Carolina justice system has been corrupted and hijacked. Only in a corrupted, hijacked system could a thoroughly corrupt individual like da nifong have become a Dustrict Attorney. Only a corrupt hijacked system would have allowed the wrongful prosecution of the three innocent, falsely accused lacrosse players in the face of overwhelming evidence that the accuser, crystal mangum,mhad lied.
Nifong Supporter said...
"my medical training at OHSU has enabled me to recognize the problems with the medical examiner's autopsy report and understand what transpired at Duke University Hospital that resulted in Daye's death."
Again assuming a fact not in evidence, that in spite of your failure to complete any residency training and your failure to achieve medical specialty certification post medical school, that you are capable of evaluating something as complex and involved as a forensic autopsy.
How many autopsies did you ever witness in medical school, let alone perform.
mr. harr, why did you never get accepted into any residency programor achieve medical board certification? Considering the year you graduated, the most likely reason is your performance as an intern was so poor that no oe would reccomend you.
mr. harr, now we know why you so intensely dislike Dr. Nichols.
Jealousy.
Unlike you, Dr. Nichols completed post graduate professional training and achieved medical board certification.
mr.harr, unlike you, Dr. Nichols is an accomplished, successful physician.
mr.harr, you call yourself an effective advocate.
Continue deluding yourself. The facts are:
1) The state took crystal to trial and convicted her;crystal did go to trial and was convicted.
2) Corrupt da nifong is still barred from practicing law;
3) None of your frivolous lawsuits have ever made it to the courtroom.
Sid said:
"I was deemed the Chosen One and my life was filled with experiences including legal engagements that prepared me to be able to now act as rectifier with regards to Crystal Mangum's plight . . ."
Perhaps the Lord is trying to teach you a lesson in humility.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Sid,
Did you ever explain why you apparently believe that pro-Nifong speech is protected speech, but anti-Nifong speech is not?
"I was destined to follow the path that led me to be a lay advocate and help save a legal system in North Carolina that has been corrupted and hijacked.
Let me know if further edification is required."
The only edification required is whether you actually believe all of that ranting.
I'm proud to call kenhyderal my friend.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
mr.harr, unlike you, Dr. Nichols is an accomplished, successful physician.
You may consider him to be accomplished and successful as a physician, but what as a person? I have some empathy for his unethical actions in the Crystal Mangum case because I believe he felt under duress to comply with wishes of the P-T-Bs in producing a fraudulent autopsy report and giving perjured testimony that helped result in Mangum's conviction. The reason he felt pressured to take actions both unethical and criminal is because he observed what happened to Mike Nifong... how Mr. Nifong was persecuted by the state and crucified in the media for his actions in the Duke Lacrosse case... representing his integrity and independence.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,
Did you ever explain why you apparently believe that pro-Nifong speech is protected speech, but anti-Nifong speech is not?
Further edification is required. Did you mean to state your question as written or did you intend to state it in the reverse?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid said:
"I was deemed the Chosen One and my life was filled with experiences including legal engagements that prepared me to be able to now act as rectifier with regards to Crystal Mangum's plight . . ."
Perhaps the Lord is trying to teach you a lesson in humility.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Abe, I don't believe that the Supreme Being was trying to educate me about humility, but rather to educate me about life and the law in order to prepare me so that he could utilize my artistic talents, sherlockian deductive skills, and intellect to fight for Tar Heelians to regain a legal system that has been corrupted and kidnapped by the P-T-Bs.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
mr.harr, you call yourself an effective advocate.
Continue deluding yourself. The facts are:
1) The state took crystal to trial and convicted her;crystal did go to trial and was convicted.
2) Corrupt da nifong is still barred from practicing law;
3) None of your frivolous lawsuits have ever made it to the courtroom.
Time will prove my effectiveness as a lay advocate. I anticipate that sooner rather than later Mangum's conviction for murder will be overturned and she will be exonerated. Having the State Bar reinstate Nifong's law license is a challenge that will take time... just as Rome was not built in one day. Regarding my lawsuits, they are not frivolous and to date I have not suffered lasting defeat, but merely temporary setbacks.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
mr. harr, now we know why you so intensely dislike Dr. Nichols.
Jealousy.
Unlike you, Dr. Nichols completed post graduate professional training and achieved medical board certification.
First, I believe that you are stating facts not in evidence. I do not dislike Dr. Nichols... I never even have met him, so how is that possible. The records will show that even in filing a complaint with the NC Medical Board against Dr. Nichols, I sought leniency and did so only with the attempts of hopefully convincing him to rectify his autopsy report.
Additionally, when Orange County D.A. Jim Woodall was considering bringing criminal charges against Dr. Nichols for his mishandling of evidence in a Cumberland County case, I wrote the D.A. and pleaded with him not to do so.
It is painful for me to attack individuals regardless of how deserving it may be, but because of the stubbornness of the Durham prosecutors in going after Mangum, I am forced to do so in hopes of getting justice for her. I'm pursuing justice (exoneration and freedom) for Mangum; the prosecution of Dr. Nichols for perjury and producing a fraudulent autopsy report is not my objective... nothing more than a means of achieving my goals for Mangum.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
mr.harr, unlike you, Dr. Nichols is an accomplished, successful physician.
You may consider him to be accomplished and successful as a physician, but what as a person? I have some empathy for his unethical actions in the Crystal Mangum case because I believe he felt under duress to comply with wishes of the P-T-Bs in producing a fraudulent autopsy report and giving perjured testimony that helped result in Mangum's conviction. The reason he felt pressured to take actions both unethical and criminal is because he observed what happened to Mike Nifong... how Mr. Nifong was persecuted by the state and crucified in the media for his actions in the Duke Lacrosse case... representing his integrity and independence."
The rather glaringly obvious flaw in this argument is that totally oorrupt da nifong was not "persecuted by the state and crucified in the media". The evidence overwhelmingly and beyond any and all doubt showed he knowingly, wrongfully prosecuted innocent men for a crime which never hapened, and he did it to get himself elected da and enhance his retirement.
What does it say for you as a person that you try to portray this ttally corrupt da as a decent honorable minister of justice? It says a whole lot, and none of it good.
Nifong Supporter said...
""Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid said:
"I was deemed the Chosen One and my life was filled with experiences including legal engagements that prepared me to be able to now act as rectifier with regards to Crystal Mangum's plight . . ."
Perhaps the Lord is trying to teach you a lesson in humility.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Abe, I don't believe that the Supreme Being was trying to educate me about humility, but rather to educate me about life and the law in order to prepare me so that he could utilize my artistic talents, sherlockian deductive skills, and intellect to fight for Tar Heelians to regain a legal system that has been corrupted and kidnapped by the P-T-Bs."
Except you have demonstrated beyond any and all doubt you totally lack "rtistic talents, sherlockian deductive skills, and intellect".
I'm proud to call Sidney Harr my friend.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
mr.harr, you call yourself an effective advocate.
Continue deluding yourself. The facts are:
1) The state took crystal to trial and convicted her;crystal did go to trial and was convicted.
2) Corrupt da nifong is still barred from practicing law;
3) None of your frivolous lawsuits have ever made it to the courtroom.
Time will prove my effectiveness as a lay advocate. I anticipate that sooner rather than later Mangum's conviction for murder will be overturned and she will be exonerated. Having the State Bar reinstate Nifong's law license is a challenge that will take time... just as Rome was not built in one day. Regarding my lawsuits, they are not frivolous and to date I have not suffered lasting defeat, but merely temporary setbacks."
You have been anticipating for a long time that crystal's conviction will be overturned and that has not hapened. You have been saying for almost 1 years tha the State Bar wil erstore da nifong's license and that has not happened. Your lawsuits are frivolous and if you believe they are viable you would believe in the validity of the piltdown man and that the moon is made of green cheese.
Effective advocate, thy name is not sidney harr.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
mr. harr, now we know why you so intensely dislike Dr. Nichols.
Jealousy.
Unlike you, Dr. Nichols completed post graduate professional training and achieved medical board certification.
"First, I believe that you are stating facts not in evidence. I do not dislike Dr. Nichols... I never even have met him, so how is that possible."
No I am not. It is obvious you resent any physician who, unlike you, completed residency training, achieved board certification and had a successful career.
"The records will show that even in filing a complaint with the NC Medical Board against Dr. Nichols, I sought leniency and did so only with the attempts of hopefully convincing him to rectify his autopsy report."
However, you had no grounds, no medical expertise to question his findings. Te fact you questioned his findings without sufficient grounds or expertise des not support your bogus clauim yo sought leniency.
"Additionally, when Orange County D.A. Jim Woodall was considering bringing criminal charges against Dr. Nichols for his mishandling of evidence in a Cumberland County case, I wrote the D.A. and pleaded with him not to do so."
Which assumes a fact not in evidence, that any competent Da in NC would care about your opinions, considering your total lack of medical expertise.
"It is painful for me to attack individuals regardless of how deserving it may be,"
However you attack individuals who are totaly undeserving of attack, e.g. the innocent lacrosse players whom crystal falsely acused of raping her.
"but because of the stubbornness of the Durham prosecutors in going after Mangum, I am forced to do so in hopes of getting justice for her."
Wrong. You are trying to get this murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.
"I'm pursuing justice (exoneration and freedom) for Mangum;"
Again, you are tryiing to get crystal a pass for her crimes.
"the prosecution of Dr. Nichols for perjury and producing a fraudulent autopsy report is not my objective... nothing more than a means of achieving my goals for Mangum."
Excet the report was not fraudulent.What is fraudulent is your assumption yo have the expertise to challenge Dr.Nichols.
November 8, 2015 at 4:14 AM"
When this old world gets me down
And there's no love to be found
I close my eyes and soon I find
I'm in a playground in my mind
Where the children laugh and the children play
And we sing a song all day
"My name is Michael, I got a nickel
I got a nickel, shiny and new
I'm gonna buy me all kinds of candy
That's what I'm gonna do"
See the little children
Living in a world that I left behind
Happy little children
In the playround in my mind
Oh the wonders that I find
In the playground in my mind
In a world that used to be
Close your eyes and follow me
Where the children laugh and the children play
And we sing a song all day
"My girl is Cindy
When we get married, we're gonna have a baby or two
We're gonna let them visit their grandma
That's what we're gonna do"
"My name is Cindy
When we get married, were gonna have a baby or two
We're gonna let them vist their grandma
That's what we're gonna do"
See the little children
See how they're playing so happy
In the playround in my mind
Ba ba ba ba ba ba ba
La la la la la la la
Sidney 3:53am:
I intended to state it as written.
Did you ever explain why you apparently believe that pro-Nifong speech is protected speech, but anti-Nifong speech is not?
Sid,
Is the library open past midnight? Or did you find another place,you can post?
Sid said:
"It is painful for me to attack individuals . . ."
Yet you do it so frequently and effortlessly.
Your defenses of Mangum and Nifong are based almost entirely on impugning other people and attacking their motives. You have personally attacked their victims, their victims' families, judges, attorneys, witnesses, experts - basically anyone who has a different view than yours.
You are a deeply dishonest man, Sid.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Sid said:
"Abe, I don't believe that the Supreme Being was trying to educate me about humility, but rather to educate me about life and the law in order to prepare me so that he could utilize my artistic talents, sherlockian deductive skills, and intellect to fight for Tar Heelians to regain a legal system that has been corrupted and kidnapped by the P-T-Bs."
A rational person in your situation would interpret the string of defeats, reprimands and stinging rebukes you have received as a sign that they are on the wrong track. But you keep on keeping on, repeating the same mistakes over and over again and hoping for a different outcome.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Right on Sidney Harr.
Nifong Supporter:
"The records will show that even in filing a complaint with the NC Medical Board against Dr. Nichols, I sought leniency and did so only with the attempts of hopefully convincing him to rectify his autopsy report."
An example of Mr. Harr's extreme hubris(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hubris: "excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance").
Dr. Nichols' autopsy report WAS NOT in need of correction. mr. harr, the minimally trained, minimally experienced graduate of the Medical School at the University of Oregon, falsely accuses Dr. Nichols of producing an incorrect autopsy report, files a non meritorious complaint with the NC Medical Board, then thinks he is a kind and considerate guy because he asks the boardto show leniency.
Nifong Supporter:
"I don't believe that the Supreme Being was trying to educate me about humility, but rather to educate me about life and the law in order to prepare me so that he could utilize my artistic talents, SHERLOCKIAN DEDUCTIVE SKILLS(emphasis added)".
The creator of Sherlock Holmes was Sir Arthurr Conan Doyle, a physician.
In crediting himself with "sherlockian deductive skills", mr. harr, the minimally trained, minimally experienced graduate of the Medical School at the University of Oregon, who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty certification, is trying to create the illusion he has a mind as brilliant as that of physician Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
It just isn't so, mr. harr, as your writings on this blog clearly demonstrate.
mr. harr,the only thing sherlockian deductive skills is that, like Sherlock Holmes they are fictional, not real.
Seeing things which are not there is not deductive skills, it is self delusion.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,
Is the library open past midnight? Or did you find another place,you can post?
Hah! A very astute commenter. No and yes.
Anonymous said...
Sidney 3:53am:
I intended to state it as written.
Did you ever explain why you apparently believe that pro-Nifong speech is protected speech, but anti-Nifong speech is not?
I think that you are putting words in my mouth. Actually I believe pretty much all speech... be it pro-Nifong or anti-Nifong, is protected by the First Amendment.
Then why did you deride the McFadyen case as frivolous?
Nifong Supporter said...
"I believe pretty much all speech... be it pro-Nifong or anti-Nifong, is protected by the First Amendment."
Same Nifong supporter expressed the opinion that AG Cooper had no right to verbalize his belief that the Lacrosse players, who were falsely accused by crystal mangum and wrongfully prosecuted by corrupt da nifong, were in fact innocent.
If I am not mistaken, Sid was also critical of the efforts of the lacrosse players, their defense team, families and supporters to rebut the provocative, inflammatory, highly prejudicial, improper and false statements made by disgraced former DA Nifong to the media. In Sid's view they needed to shut up and take it.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Sid wrote: "I think that you are putting words in my mouth. Actually I believe pretty much all speech... be it pro-Nifong or anti-Nifong, is protected by the First Amendment."
I do give Sid credit for allowing a free discussion. He is not a censor. Sid allows contrary views. That is not a problem. Sid's problem is he fails to learn from those contrary views. He continues to repeat the same mistakes. That's his problem though.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt:
As you well know, the First Amendment does not apply to this shlog, and Sid's allowing or not allowing comments here isn't the point. Although Sid allows dissenting views, I suspect it is because he knows this site would die if he didn't. Thus, it is entirely self serving on his part and not out of respect of the right for others to express their views.
Sid has been critical of the speech of the AG rightly exonerating the falsely accused players. He has also been critical of the speech of the lacrosse players, their defense team and supporters rebutting the inflammatory, improper and false allegations made against them. He has not just been critical of the speech itself, which is, of course, his prerogative; he has questioned the right of the people involved to engage in such speech, and he has smeared them for doing so.
Even beyond that, Sid has shown time and again that he is not above engaging in smear campaigns and making knowingly false statements to advance his position, or discredit the people who oppose him. Such speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
Sid's problems isn't just that he fails to learn from his mistakes, but that he will engage in offensive, wrongful and illegal conduct to advance his cause. He is so immersed in his position he is not only unable to see when he is wrong, he is unable to appreciate the nature and consequences of his own conduct.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
With regard to mr. harr and the issue of free speech:
Again, his statements about AG Cooper and his belief,based on a thorough examination of the evidence, that he believed the lacrosse players were innocent, all indicate mr.harr believed AG Cooper did not have the right to express such an opinion.
Earlier the New Black Panthers demonstrated in Durham, spouting out guilt presuming sppech about the Lacrosse players and drmanding the court find them guilty. mr. harr called that First Amendment protected frwee speech.
Anonymous said: "Same Nifong supporter expressed the opinion that AG Cooper had no right to verbalize his belief that the Lacrosse players, who were falsely accused by crystal mangum and wrongfully prosecuted by corrupt da nifong, were in fact innocent".......................................Maybe the right, yeah, but this opinion should have no force or effect
Kenny whines: Maybe the right, yeah, but this opinion should have no force or effect.
Kenny, stop making straw man arguments.
Cooper's statement had no legal effect. The defendants were innocent under law before he stated his opinion, and they were innocent under the law after he stated it.
No reasonable person concluded that Cooper's statement had any legal effect. He summarized the results of the special prosecutor's investigation. He was stating his opinion that the defendants were innocent of the charges against them because there was no credible evidence to support the allegation and a significant amount of evidence that the alleged crimes for which they had been indicted did not occur.
As you know, a straw man argument is an intellectually dishonest rhetorical device. Please stop making them.
Kenny:
When the person charged under the law with determining whether to prosecute decides that the persons accused of a crime should not be charged because the complaining witness lied, the prosecutor engaged in massive misconduct and the accused are actually innocent of committing any crime, it is of enormous force and effect. Don't pretend it isn't.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
"kenhyderal said...
Anonymous said: "Same Nifong supporter expressed the opinion that AG Cooper had no right to verbalize his belief that the Lacrosse players, who were falsely accused by crystal mangum and wrongfully prosecuted by corrupt da nifong, were in fact innocent".......................................Maybe the right, yeah, but this opinion should have no force or effect".
Who said it did.
The Lacrosse players were innocent as a matter of fact beause the evuidence confirmed as fact, beyond any and all doubt, that crystal lied about being raped.
This is another iteration of your opinion that the people she accused should be presumed guilty because she is black and they are white.
"kenhyderal said...
Anonymous said: "Same Nifong supporter expressed the opinion that AG Cooper had no right to verbalize his belief that the Lacrosse players, who were falsely accused by crystal mangum and wrongfully prosecuted by corrupt da nifong, were in fact innocent".......................................Maybe the right, yeah, but this opinion should have no force or effect
November 9, 2015 at 9:41 AM"
An iteration of your hypocrisy. Maybe you are right that an opinion,regardless of the source of the opinion, should have no legal effect.
Yet you believe that your opinion,that innocent men should be presumed guilty of raping crystal does have some effect, even though you have NO evidence that crystal was raped.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid said:
"It is painful for me to attack individuals . . ."
Yet you do it so frequently and effortlessly.
Your defenses of Mangum and Nifong are based almost entirely on impugning other people and attacking their motives. You have personally attacked their victims, their victims' families, judges, attorneys, witnesses, experts - basically anyone who has a different view than yours.
You are a deeply dishonest man, Sid.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Yes, Abe. I do attack individuals frequently and maybe seemingly effortlessly, but that does not mean it is something I relish doing. I don't want to put people and their reputations in negative light, but I am a lay advocate who puts my entire efforts into my advocacy. That said, my attacks are not malicious, and those on the receiving end are more likely than not deserving.
I personally met Daniel Meier at the Durham Justice Center... he struck me as a nice person and I liked him. However, he sold out Crystal Mangum when he had the opportunity to easily have her acquitted. So, unfortunately, I have to go after him. Likewise, I met Judge Ridgeway in the supermarket. We had a nice chat about family... I thought he was extremely nice, as well. But, unfortunately, I must do what I must in order to rectify the injustice against Crystal. Also, I met Charlene Coggins-Franks, the Durham prosecutor... a very nice lady. I liked her too, but, again, her actions unjustly put Mangum in jail. Now, I am quick to strive for leniency when possible for the prosecutors because they operate in an environment of terror... especially after seeing what the State and the media did to Mike Nifong.
Bottom line is that I will go after anyone, who is deserving, in a civil, legal, ethical, and measured way in order to achieve rectification in the Mangum case... Painful as it may be, those people who I attack can not begin to experience the suffering that Crystal has with four years of unjust incarceration.
Harr Supporter said...
Right on Sidney Harr.
Obviously an enlightened commenter... Thank you for your support.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Nifong Supporter said...
"I believe pretty much all speech... be it pro-Nifong or anti-Nifong, is protected by the First Amendment."
Same Nifong supporter expressed the opinion that AG Cooper had no right to verbalize his belief that the Lacrosse players, who were falsely accused by crystal mangum and wrongfully prosecuted by corrupt da nifong, were in fact innocent.
As kenhyderal has mentioned and I am in total agreement, the problem with Roy Cooper's statement is that it was inappropriate in a professional manner and absolutely unprecedented. And as kenhyderal has pointed out, the mainstream media has used his statements about "innocence" as though they were accepted legal fact. Being a prominent official in the executive branch of government, he is not in position to adjudicate matters... he knows it as well as the media. Yet, the media has clung to the Cooper Promulgation as a means for proclaiming, as fact, that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocence.
Let me know if further edification is required.
Anonymous said...
"kenhyderal said...
Anonymous said: "Same Nifong supporter expressed the opinion that AG Cooper had no right to verbalize his belief that the Lacrosse players, who were falsely accused by crystal mangum and wrongfully prosecuted by corrupt da nifong, were in fact innocent".......................................Maybe the right, yeah, but this opinion should have no force or effect".
Who said it did.
The Lacrosse players were innocent as a matter of fact beause the evuidence confirmed as fact, beyond any and all doubt, that crystal lied about being raped.
This is another iteration of your opinion that the people she accused should be presumed guilty because she is black and they are white.
C'mon, Anon. Get real! You never saw any evidence that Mangum lied about being sexually assaulted, and Cooper never presented any. In fact, the case has been sealed, if I'm not mistaken. If he did not feel that the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse defendants would result in a conviction, all he had to do was dismiss the charges. To declare them innocent is outrageous.
The Duke Lacrosse case differs from the Mangum case because the Mangum case is totally open, transparent, and objective. Documents from prosecution discovery have been liberally presented... nothing suppressed or withheld.
Personally, I am not in position to comment about innocence or guilt in the Duke Lacrosse case because I do not have access to any of the discovery or documentation. All visitors to this blog site, however, have the opportunity to make conclusions or hold opinions based on actual evidence in the case.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"kenhyderal said...
Anonymous said: "Same Nifong supporter expressed the opinion that AG Cooper had no right to verbalize his belief that the Lacrosse players, who were falsely accused by crystal mangum and wrongfully prosecuted by corrupt da nifong, were in fact innocent".......................................Maybe the right, yeah, but this opinion should have no force or effect".
Who said it did.
The Lacrosse players were innocent as a matter of fact beause the evuidence confirmed as fact, beyond any and all doubt, that crystal lied about being raped.
This is another iteration of your opinion that the people she accused should be presumed guilty because she is black and they are white.
Shame on you. Quit playing the race card!
"Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocence.[Sic]"
Sid -- Even Kenny agrees that the defendants were innocent. Why can't you?
Abe wrote: "When the person charged under the law with determining whether to prosecute decides that the persons accused of a crime should not be charged because the complaining witness lied, the prosecutor engaged in massive misconduct and the accused are actually innocent of committing any crime, it is of enormous force and effect. Don't pretend it isn't."
Exactly right, Abe. Under North Carolina law, the District Attorney has the power to charge or not, to continue prosecution or not. NCGS § 15A-931. When NCGS § 15A-931 was codified in 1973, it was a codification of the existing common law dating back to colonial times. That said, the prosecutor's discretion is not unlimited. Most notably, Rule 3.8(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Professional conduct imposes special limits on the discretion of the District Attorney. Specifically, the District Attorney must refrain from prosecuting cases that are not supported by probable cause. Thus, the Attorney General's remarks (acting in the stead of the District Attorney for the 14th Judicial District) are consistent with his Rule 3.8(a) duties. Explaining to all how he is discharging his duties has great significance.
Walt-in-Durham
Harr -- You've been guilty of playing the race card yourself -- I can recall specifically an issue where you portrayed a guard as white in one of your little cartoons when he was most definitely black.....But a black guard didn't fit into your little racist narrative, so you conveniently changed his color.
Nifong Supporter said...
"That said, my attacks are not malicious, and those on the receiving end are more likely than not deserving."
Deny it as much as you like. The facts are, the attacjks you have launched against the innocent, falsely accused lacrosse players, against Mrs. Rae Evans, against Daniel Meier, against Dr,. Clay Nichols, against Dr. Christena Roberts were in fact malicious.
Nifong Supporter said...
"I personally met Daniel Meier at the Durham Justice Center... he struck me as a nice person and I liked him. However, he sold out Crystal Mangum when he had the opportunity to easily have her acquitted."
Like it or not that is a malicious attack on DanielMeier, an attack which has no factual evidence to support it. Do you expect anyone to accept as valid the statemet from no legal training, no legal experience, filer and loser of frivolous lawsuits mr,. harr to be worthy of belief?
Nifong Supporter said...
"But, unfortunately, I must do what I must in order to rectify the injustice against Crystal."
Except no one ever perpetrated any injustice against crystal. Youuse her as justification for all the injustice you try to perpetrate against a lot of others.
Nifong Supporter said...
"C'mon, Anon. Get real! You never saw any evidence that Mangum lied about being sexually assaulted, and Cooper never presented any."
mr. harr, how about you get real. A criminal case is solely determined by the evidence against the accused. There was absolutely no evidence that any of the accused, that anyone in fcr, had raped crystal on the night of the lacrosse party.
If crystal alleges she was raped in the face of overwhelming evidence she was not, then the only possible conclusion is, she lied.
You claim you have great ability of sherlockian deduction. Well, how you are so incapable of deducing the obvious fact thay crystal lied?
I say again, the only thing about your capacity for sherlockian deduction is that like sherlock holmes it is a piece of fiction.
Nifong Supporter said...
"As kenhyderal has mentioned and I am in total agreement, the problem with Roy Cooper's statement is that it was inappropriate in a professional manner and absolutely unprecedented."
This statement by you, supported by kenny hissy fit is totally and absolutely without relevance. As I said in an earlier comment, what determines guilt or innocence in a criminal case is evidence. The evidence generated in the crystal mangum phony rape case showed beyond any and all doubt that no crime took place so there is totally and absolutely no doubt as to the innocence of the accused. If your poweres of deduction are so great, if your legal acumen is so vast, why are you unable to gras something so obvious?
"And as kenhyderal has pointed out, the mainstream media has used his statements about "innocence" as though they were accepted legal fact."
Correction: "And as kenhyderal has so inappropriately and incorrectly pointed out, the mainstream media has used his statements about 'innocence' as though they were accepted legal fact."
The innocence of the Lacrosse players IS accepted legal act because yhere was no evidence that a crime took place in the first place.
Again, if your legal acumebn isso vast, why are you so incapable of grasping the concept of the prosecution's obligation to prove. The first thing a prosecutor has to establish is that a crime took place.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Shame on you. Quit playing the race card!"
Quite a hypocritical statement from someone who staunchly defended corrupt da nifong's playing the race card.
You have called corrupt da nifong someone who worked for justice regardless of the race of the accuser or accused. nifong prosecuted the Lacrosse players because they were white and the accuser was black. He hoped this would win him points withDuke's black electorate, get him elected da, and get him an enhanced retirement. had the accused been black and the accuser white, corrupt da nifong would never have made an issue of the case.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Personally, I am not in position to comment about innocence or guilt in the Duke Lacrosse case because I do not have access to any of the discovery or documentation."
BULLSHIT!!!!
In your blog, the attitude you show is that the Lacrosse players ARE guilty. Every time you refer to crystal as the "victim/accuser"in the Duke rape case, you are expressing the opinion that the Lacrosse players are guilty.
Another facet of your hypocrisy. You can express the opinion that the Lacrosse players are guilty.But AG Cooper, who unlike you did review the evidence, should not have been allowed to exoress his opinion they are innocent.
Which in turn is yet another way you express the opinion they are guilty.
Nifong Supporter said...
"If he did not feel that the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse defendants would result in a conviction, all he had to do was dismiss the charges. To declare them innocent is outrageous."
And again you get it wrong and express your opinion that the Lacrosse players are guilty. There was more than just an inability to get a conviction. Crystal's complaint was not credible. There was no physical evidence of rape. There was no forensic evidence of rape. There was no evidence at all that a crime had taken place. They never should have been charged in the first place.
Nifong Supporter said...
" All visitors to this blog site, however, have the opportunity to make conclusions or hold opinions based on actual evidence in the case."
Another blatant piece of hypocrisy on your part.
You supported da nifong's corrupt, illegal attempt to withhold exculpatory evidence from the defendants, evidence which he was obligated bylaw to release to the defendants as soon as he had become aware of it.
Fake KH said: "Sid -- Even Kenny agrees that the defendants were innocent. Why can't you?".................................I agree that Colin Finnerty , being wrongly identified in the flawed photo line-up, was innocent. I also agree that Evans and Seligmann were innocent of rape. Other serious crimes occurred such as kidnapping, sexual assault and robbery not to mention the withholding evidence.
kenhyderal said...
"Fake KH said: "Sid -- Even Kenny agrees that the defendants were innocent. Why can't you?".................................I agree that Colin Finnerty , being wrongly identified in the flawed photo line-up, was innocent. I also agree that Evans and Seligmann were innocent of rape. Other serious crimes occurred such as kidnapping, sexual assault and robbery not to mention the withholding evidence."
What evidence was withheld. The only instance of evidence withholding was da nifong's withholding of the exculpatory evidence fromthe people he wanted to accuse?
kenhyderal said...
"Other serious crimes occurred such as kidnapping, sexual assault and robbery not to mention the withholding evidence."Sexual assault did not occur. Neither did kidnapping. Ergo there could have been ono withholding of evidence off those supposed crimes.
Your delusions based on kilgo's non existent lacrosse player friend are not evidence of anything other than your own incompetence.
so I was deemed the Chosen One and my life was filled with experiences including legal engagements that prepared me to be able to now act as rectifier with regards to Crystal Mangum's plight...
I am the only rectumfinder around these parts!
Blogger Nifong Supporter said...
Harr Supporter said...
Right on Sidney Harr.
Obviously an enlightened commenter... Thank you for your support.
November 9, 2015 at 12:19 PM
I'm proud to call Sidney Harr my friend.
The Rectumfinder said...
"I am the only rectumfinder around these parts!"
Whose rectum did you find?
Kenhyderal wrote: ".I agree that Colin Finnerty , being wrongly identified in the flawed photo line-up, was innocent." Glad you agree about Finnerty. But, Evans and Seligman were also identified in the flawed lineup.
"I also agree that Evans and Seligmann were innocent of rape."
Indeed, they are innocent of rape and every other crime alleged.
"Other serious crimes occurred such as kidnapping,"
There is no evidence of that. The time stamps show Crystal came and left rather quickly. Couldn't be a kidnapping.
"... sexual assault"
Again, there is a complete absence of evidence to support that charge.
"... and robbery"
There is no evidence to support that charge against anyone either.
"... not to mention the withholding evidence."
No evidence of that either. Statements were given freely, even though there is no requirement to do so. The team captains did not object to the execution of search warrants at their house. They did not destroy any evidence. Indeed, they preserved photos and offered to share them with the state. If there was anything wrong with the collection of evidence it was by the state, not any defendants or witnesses. The wildly broad non-testimonial order sought by the state and granted by a Superior Court Judge was in violation of the statute that authorizes non-testimonial orders. The lineups conducted by the Durham Police Department were in violation of their own general orders not to mention state common law on identification.
Walt-in-Durham
Whose rectum did you find?
I'm gonna find Sidney Harr's butt and drill him a new one!
"Other serious crimes occurred such as kidnapping, sexual assault and robbery not to mention the withholding evidence."
Kenny -- Are you saying some of the Duke LAX 3 were guilty of all of these or some of these? Which of the 3 were guilty of which crimes specifically?
More on mr. harr the hypocrite.
He rather sanctimoniously proclaims he has not formed any opinion on the guilt or innocence of any member of the Lacrosse team. In each and every letter he has written to varios authorities in his quest to get crystal a pass for her crimes,he describes her as the"victim/accuser"in the Duke rape case. His opinion is that members of the Lacrosse team were huilty.
Anoter manifestation of mr. harr the hypocrite.
He rants and raves about AG Cooper "proclaiming" the defendants innocent. He wants people to disregard the fact that AG Cooper proclaimed nothing.He expressed an opinion, based on the investigation his office conducted, that there was no evidence that the crime alleged by crystal ever happened and he and his investigators believed the men were innocent.
But mr. harr the hypocrite has proclaimed the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players guilty, and he expects everyone in the world to believe that establishes their guilt.
Basically, mr. harr the hypocrite is angry, not because AG Cooper proclaimed the Lacrosse players innocent, but because AG Cooper did not proclaim them guilty.
Another aspect of this is harr the hypocrite's delusional megalomania. He does not want it shown to the world tha he is nothing but an unimportant, malicious twerp.
It just so happened that the Supreme Being had plans for me other than being an outstanding physician. Undoubtedly he foresaw that the legal system in North Carolina would go corrupt with widespread racial disparity, so I was deemed the Chosen One and my life was filled with experiences including legal engagements that prepared me to be able to now act as rectifier with regards to Crystal Mangum's plight... as well as Shan Carter's and others. Had it not been for those other lawsuits in my past, which is akin to Jedi training, I would not be able to effectively advocate for Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum, and others who are egregiously mistreated by the legal system in North Carolina.
Dr. Harr, did you ever once win any lawsuit against anyone in any court?
If your answer is "yes," please tell us the case name and number so I can verify your claim.
If the answer is "no," please tell us why a long record of failure in court prepares you to be an advocate on behalf of anyone?
And if your answer is "I think I won something once but I can't remember the details," please tell us why we should believe you.
Walt said...
Abe wrote: "When the person charged under the law with determining whether to prosecute decides that the persons accused of a crime should not be charged because the complaining witness lied, the prosecutor engaged in massive misconduct and the accused are actually innocent of committing any crime, it is of enormous force and effect. Don't pretend it isn't."
Exactly right, Abe. Under North Carolina law, the District Attorney has the power to charge or not, to continue prosecution or not. NCGS § 15A-931. When NCGS § 15A-931 was codified in 1973, it was a codification of the existing common law dating back to colonial times. That said, the prosecutor's discretion is not unlimited. Most notably, Rule 3.8(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Professional conduct imposes special limits on the discretion of the District Attorney. Specifically, the District Attorney must refrain from prosecuting cases that are not supported by probable cause. Thus, the Attorney General's remarks (acting in the stead of the District Attorney for the 14th Judicial District) are consistent with his Rule 3.8(a) duties. Explaining to all how he is discharging his duties has great significance.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, no one is denying that the Attorney General has the right to charge or prosecute a defendant in a crime... The point is that the A.G. has no right to adjudicate by proclaiming innocence or guilt.
Can we agree on that?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Harr -- You've been guilty of playing the race card yourself -- I can recall specifically an issue where you portrayed a guard as white in one of your little cartoons when he was most definitely black.....But a black guard didn't fit into your little racist narrative, so you conveniently changed his color.
Hah! Is that the best example you can come up with?
Anonymous said...
Nifong Supporter said...
"As kenhyderal has mentioned and I am in total agreement, the problem with Roy Cooper's statement is that it was inappropriate in a professional manner and absolutely unprecedented."
This statement by you, supported by kenny hissy fit is totally and absolutely without relevance. As I said in an earlier comment, what determines guilt or innocence in a criminal case is evidence. The evidence generated in the crystal mangum phony rape case showed beyond any and all doubt that no crime took place so there is totally and absolutely no doubt as to the innocence of the accused. If your poweres of deduction are so great, if your legal acumen is so vast, why are you unable to gras something so obvious?
"And as kenhyderal has pointed out, the mainstream media has used his statements about "innocence" as though they were accepted legal fact."
Correction: "And as kenhyderal has so inappropriately and incorrectly pointed out, the mainstream media has used his statements about 'innocence' as though they were accepted legal fact."
The innocence of the Lacrosse players IS accepted legal act because yhere was no evidence that a crime took place in the first place.
Again, if your legal acumebn isso vast, why are you so incapable of grasping the concept of the prosecution's obligation to prove. The first thing a prosecutor has to establish is that a crime took place.
I am in total agreement with your last sentence... that the "first thing a prosecutor has to establish is that a crime took place." That is definitely what prosecutors did not do in Mangum's case. They had no proof of Larceny of Chose in Action as Daye admitted to giving Mangum the cashier's checks. Most importantly, prosecutors failed to prove that the stab wound led to Daye's death... which was actually accidental with the esophageal intubation being the proximate cause.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Nifong Supporter said...
"Shame on you. Quit playing the race card!"
Quite a hypocritical statement from someone who staunchly defended corrupt da nifong's playing the race card.
You have called corrupt da nifong someone who worked for justice regardless of the race of the accuser or accused. nifong prosecuted the Lacrosse players because they were white and the accuser was black. He hoped this would win him points withDuke's black electorate, get him elected da, and get him an enhanced retirement. had the accused been black and the accuser white, corrupt da nifong would never have made an issue of the case.
To me your premise doesn't make sense. To curry the African American vote in order to win an election is not a tried and true strategy for winning an election (as usually registered voter numbers are fewer and turnout is usually extremely low). By prosecuting the Duke lacrosse defendants, Nifong put his campaign in jeopardy, and if anything, made the race for Durham County District Attorney much tighter than it would have been had he simply dropped charges against the three student/athlete/partygoers.
Anonymous said...
More on mr. harr the hypocrite.
He rather sanctimoniously proclaims he has not formed any opinion on the guilt or innocence of any member of the Lacrosse team. In each and every letter he has written to varios authorities in his quest to get crystal a pass for her crimes,he describes her as the"victim/accuser"in the Duke rape case. His opinion is that members of the Lacrosse team were huilty.
By describing Mangum as a "victim/accuser," I am doing nothing more than informing people of her role with respect to the incident. It has nothing to do with the innocence or guilt of the Duke lacrosse defendants.
Your example of "playing the race card" using the above referenced example is essentially non-existent. It is not a muster-passer.
By describing Mangum as a "victim/accuser," I am doing nothing more than informing people of her role with respect to the incident. It has nothing to do with the innocence or guilt of the Duke lacrosse defendants."?
Come on, Dr. Harr, don't play dumb. If she wasn't raped, she's not a "victim." And if she identified innocent men as her attackers, she's a "false accuser."
And when are you going to answer the questions I asked on 111/10 at 10:15 a.m.?
"Hah! Is that the best example you can come up with?"
Why did you portray the guard as Caucasian when the news clearly showed he was not?
Nifong Supporter said...
"no one is denying that the Attorney General has the right to charge or prosecute a defendant in a crime... The point is that the A.G. has no right to adjudicate by proclaiming innocence or guilt."
Except the Attorney General did not proclaim anything. What he said, his office investigated, found no credible evidence that a crime had occurred, and that he and his office believed the people da nifong accused were innocent. That is expressing an opinion, which AG Cooper was entitled to do.
I say again, what has you p---ed is not that AG Cooper proclaimed the lacrosse players innocent but that he DID NOT proclaim them guilty.
You, harr the hypocrite, are the only one who has proclaimed anything about the guilt or innocence ot the members of the Lacrosse team, and you HAVE, on multiple occasions,proclaimed them guilty.
"Nifong Supporter said...
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Harr -- You've been guilty of playing the race card yourself -- I can recall specifically an issue where you portrayed a guard as white in one of your little cartoons when he was most definitely black.....But a black guard didn't fit into your little racist narrative, so you conveniently changed his color.
Hah! Is that the best example you can come up with?"
mr. harr the hypocrite, it is bbetter than anything you have come up with.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Again, if your legal acumen is so vast, why are you so incapable of grasping the concept of the prosecution's obligation to prove. The first thing a prosecutor has to establish is that a crime took place.
I am in total agreement with your last sentence... that the 'first thing a prosecutor has to establish is that a crime took place.' That is definitely what prosecutors did not do in Mangum's case."
harr the hypocrite, you are wrong. Yes they did establish that a crime happened.
It is more evidence of your legal acumen, or rather your lack thereof, that you can not see this.
Nifong Supporter said...
"To me your premise doesn't make sense. To curry the African American vote in order to win an election is not a tried and true strategy for winning an election (as usually registered voter numbers are fewer and turnout is usually extremely low). By prosecuting the Duke lacrosse defendants, Nifong put his campaign in jeopardy, and if anything, made the race for Durham County District Attorney much tighter than it would have been had he simply dropped charges against the three student/athlete/partygoers."
Another example of why your so called powers of sherlockian deduction are non existent.
The only poll done before the election, admittedly done by Frieda Black, showed nifong's level of support among ALL voters was 20%. nifong never produced any poll results to show different. By simple deductive reasoning(of which you are incapable), one can see that either nifong could not afford to conduct his own poll, because no one was supporting his campaign financially, or that his own poll would have also shown his low level of support.
After crystal's false allegations of rape became an issue, after nifong did play the race card, he won the democratic primary, receiving much than 20% of the black vote, much more than 20% of the white vote.
That is empirical evidence that nifong did win the election by playing the race card in the election. Empirical evidence is evidence which is actually seen. It trumps your less than capable evaluation of the situation based on your non existent power of deductive reasoning.
Nifong Supporter said...
"By describing Mangum as a "victim/accuser," I am doing nothing more than informing people of her role with respect to the incident. It has nothing to do with the innocence or guilt of the Duke lacrosse defendants."
How did you deduce that? Via your non existent powers of deductive reasoning? By constantly referring to crystal as the "victim/accuser" of the Duke rape case, you ARE proclaiming the accused were guilty. Funny how harr the hypocrite can say the AG's belief in the innocence of the Lacrosse players has no legal weight but that his proclamations of their guilt in the face of the overwhelming evidence of their innocence does carry some legal weight. Again, harr the hypocrite, what has you p---ed off is that AG Cooper did not proclaim them guilty.
And you ARE NOT informing people of crystal's true role in the incident. She was the victimizer/false accuser.
"Your example of "playing the race card" using the above referenced example is essentially non-existent. It is not a muster-passer."
harr the hypocrite, with your non existent powers of deductive reasoning, you couldn't tell the difference between a muster passer and a nustard plaster.
Sid wrote: "I am in total agreement with your last sentence... that the "first thing a prosecutor has to establish is that a crime took place." That is definitely what prosecutors did not do in Mangum's case. They had no proof of Larceny of Chose in Action as Daye admitted to giving Mangum the cashier's checks."
We've discussed this before, many times. Crystal had a good defense on the larceny charge. Her lawyer did an excellent job of carrying out that defense.
"Most importantly, prosecutors failed to prove that the stab wound led to Daye's death... which was actually accidental with the esophageal intubation being the proximate cause."
There's where you fall short, by a large margin. First, the state did prove their case. They had the expert testimony necessary to link the death to the stabbing. The defense expert agreed with that. But, you fail on a second point, the first thing the state has to prove is the assault charge. That is that Crystal stabbed Daye and that it was not self defense. Death only comes into the equation later. The state had ample proof that Crystal stabbed Daye. The only real issue was self defense. And, on that point, the state succeeded. Mainly they were successful because Crystal got on the stand and lied about too many things to be believable on the self defense issue. Those pesky facts keep getting in the way of your fixed false belief.
Walt-in-Durham
When will Dr. Harr answer the questions I asked him on November 10, 2015 at 10:55 AM?
A Lawyer, since there is much interest in my lawsuit against Duke, I will upload a brief written piece about the feeble defense Duke used against me that was allowed by the District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder.
What you posted doesn't respond to the point I have made repeatedly: you sued Duke under Section 1983. Section 1983 applies only to acts by agents of a state. You could have videotapes proving that FBI and IRS agents broke down your door without a warrant, beat you up for no reason and raped your dog, but if you sued them under section 1983, you would lose, because FBI and IRS agents work for the federal government, not for a state. (There are other laws you could sue under, but not section 1983). Likewise, it makes no difference what Duke did to you, it couldn't possibly have been a violation of section 1983, because Duke is not a state agency. You sued under a statute that didn't apply, and therefore your suit was, quite properly, dismissed.
Comment on the previous comment.
mr.harr still believes he is a person of great legal skills and is an effective advocate. He can't advocate for hmself very effectively.
That's Sid's problem with refusing to learn the law. He keeps doing things wrong, over and over, and expects a different result ... that's the definition of insanity, and that's him.
But, his ego is getting bigger and bigger. I love the letter to McCrory calling McCrory a crook and a phony, then asking him for help.
Walt said: "Mainly they were successful because Crystal got on the stand and lied about too many things to be believable on the self defense issue. Those pesky facts keep getting in the way of your fixed false belief"....................... Wrong Crystal did not lie under oath. She knew she was innocent and she naively believed that if she took the stand and told the truth she would be acquitted. Her incompetent Lawyer didn't want her to testify because, frankly, he didn't believe she was innocent and he knew he wasn't able or prepared to mount an effective defence against the State. Coggins-Franks', aggressively, set out to badger, confuse and bully Crystal, an easy but unethical thing to do. Thanks to the withering defense of Meir this went virtually unchallenged. Let me assure you when Crystal gets her new Trial and a competent defence those "pesky facts" you refer to will be shown to be fanciful conjecture that a well informed Jury will never buy.
no legal training no legal experience kenhyderal said...
"Walt said: 'Mainly they were successful because Crystal got on the stand and lied about too many things to be believable on the self defense issue. Those pesky facts keep getting in the way of your fixed false belief'....................... Wrong Crystal did not lie under oath."
Wrong. crystal the false accuser, liar of the duke rape case did lie under oath.
"She knew she was innocent and she naively believed that if she took the stand and told the truth she would be acquitted."
Unlike the falsely accused lacrosse playeers, she was not innocent. What she deluded herself into believing was harr the hypocrite's delusions that the state would dismiss the charges and not go to trial.
"Her incompetent Lawyer didn't want her to testify because, frankly, he didn't believe she was innocent and he knew he wasn't able or prepared to mount an effective defence against the State."
What you got right is tht Daniel Meier "knew he wasn't able or prepared to mount an effective defence against the State". That was because crystal did murder Reginald Daye.
"Coggins-Franks', aggressively, set out to badger, confuse and bully Crystal, an easy but unethical thing to do."
To kenny hssy fit, what is unethical is not giving murderess/false accuser crystal a pass for her crimes.
"Thanks to the withering defense of Meir this went virtually unchallenged."
A withering defense is a defense which would have withered the case of the prosecution. Daniel Meier was unable to present any withering defense because there was no reasonable doubt as to crystal's guilt.
"Let me assure you when Crystal gets her new Trial and a competent defence those 'pesky facts' you refer to will be shown to be fanciful conjecture that a well informed Jury will never buy."
You have assured us for years that kilgo has a friend on the lacrosse team who witnessed crystal's rape at the lacrosse party. After that, your assurances have no credibility.
kenhyderal said...
Walt said: "Mainly they were successful because Crystal got on the stand and lied about too many things to be believable on the self defense issue. Those pesky facts keep getting in the way of your fixed false belief"....................... Wrong Crystal did not lie under oath. She knew she was innocent and she naively believed that if she took the stand and told the truth she would be acquitted. Her incompetent Lawyer didn't want her to testify because, frankly, he didn't believe she was innocent and he knew he wasn't able or prepared to mount an effective defence against the State. Coggins-Franks', aggressively, set out to badger, confuse and bully Crystal, an easy but unethical thing to do. Thanks to the withering defense of Meir this went virtually unchallenged. Let me assure you when Crystal gets her new Trial and a competent defence those "pesky facts" you refer to will be shown to be fanciful conjecture that a well informed Jury will never buy.
Actually, kenhyderal, you are partially correct. True, Meier did not want Crystal to testify, but the reason is that he was afraid that she would bring up medical issues related to Daye's death. During one of my visits, she told me that Meier kept telling her not to mention any medical issues... repeatedly reinforcing her not to talk about any medical issues. During his direct examination of Mangum, Meier and prosecutor Coggins-Franks stayed away from questions that would require medical issues in response. Mangum, as you stated, did place her faith in Meier and she complied with his request about not mentioning anything medical. She told me that when she got off the stand and looked at Meier she was struck by the appearance of relief on his face.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
That's Sid's problem with refusing to learn the law. He keeps doing things wrong, over and over, and expects a different result ... that's the definition of insanity, and that's him.
But, his ego is getting bigger and bigger. I love the letter to McCrory calling McCrory a crook and a phony, then asking him for help.
I think the media coverage of McCrory's role in the prison maintenance contract extension and the quid pro quo with the gambling issue adequately attests to the character and integrity (or lack thereof) of our governor. Actually, I did not ask McCrory for help, but rather I recommended that he do the right thing... the ethical thing in Mangum's case. By so doing and assuring justice for Mangum, McCrory would score a tally in the positive side of his political ledger. So, you see, I was really trying to help him... and Mangum, as well.
Let me know if further edification is required.
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
A Lawyer, since there is much interest in my lawsuit against Duke, I will upload a brief written piece about the feeble defense Duke used against me that was allowed by the District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder.
What you posted doesn't respond to the point I have made repeatedly: you sued Duke under Section 1983. Section 1983 applies only to acts by agents of a state. You could have videotapes proving that FBI and IRS agents broke down your door without a warrant, beat you up for no reason and raped your dog, but if you sued them under section 1983, you would lose, because FBI and IRS agents work for the federal government, not for a state. (There are other laws you could sue under, but not section 1983). Likewise, it makes no difference what Duke did to you, it couldn't possibly have been a violation of section 1983, because Duke is not a state agency. You sued under a statute that didn't apply, and therefore your suit was, quite properly, dismissed.
Judge Schroeder did not write in his opinion that I filed the lawsuit under the wrong statute. What he said was that I failed to recognize that Duke University is a "private" institution and that the alleged incident occurred on "private" property.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Hah! Is that the best example you can come up with?"
Why did you portray the guard as Caucasian when the news clearly showed he was not?
Actually the race of the guard was irrelevant to the story. News reports may have indicated that the guard was black, but I was unaware of that. Had I known that the guard was black, then that is how I would have portrayed him.
Sorry, but that is not a muster-passer for the claim of "playing the race card."
Sid,
Are you really as stupid as you act? Further elucidation on that point is required.
In your response, you confirm A Lawyer's argument. You filed under a statute that covers only actions by a state actor. Duke is a private institution, not a state actor. The claim you filed is not covered by the law you cited. A court is not required to consider other claims that you could have filed and other statutes that might have provided relief. That is what lawyers are for.
You made a claim under a law that is inapplicable to the facts of your case. You lose.
Please stop wasting your readers' time with these ridiculous arguments.
Nifong Supporter said...
"...Meier did not want Crystal to testify, but the reason is that he was afraid that she would bring up medical issues related to Daye's death. During one of my visits, she told me that Meier kept telling her not to mention any medical issues... repeatedly reinforcing her not to talk about any medical issues. During his direct examination of Mangum, Meier and prosecutor Coggins-Franks stayed away from questions that would require medical issues in response."
crystal, like mr. harr the hypocrite, the minimally trained, minimally experienced graduate of the medical school at the University of Oregon, is unqualified to bring any medical issues.
Nifong Supporter said...
"I think the media coverage of McCrory's role in the prison maintenance contract extension and the quid pro quo with the gambling issue adequately attests to the character and integrity (or lack thereof) of our governor."
Again presuming a fact not in evidence, that mr. harr the hypocrite can think.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Judge Schroeder did not write in his opinion that I filed the lawsuit under the wrong statute. What he said was that I failed to recognize that Duke University is a "private" institution and that the alleged incident occurred on "private" property."
Nevertheless, as A Lawyer points out, you did file the lawsuit under the wrong statute, proof that mr. harr the hypocrite can not effectively advocate on his own behalf.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
'Hah! Is that the best example you can come up with?'
Why did you portray the guard as Caucasian when the news clearly showed he was not?
Actually the race of the guard was irrelevant to the story. News reports may have indicated that the guard was black, but I was unaware of that. Had I known that the guard was black, then that is how I would have portrayed him.
Sorry, but that is not a muster-passer for the claim of 'playing the race card.'"
Yes it is an example of mr. harr the hypocrite playing the race card.
Judge Schroeder did not write in his opinion that I filed the lawsuit under the wrong statute. What he said was that I failed to recognize that Duke University is a "private" institution and that the alleged incident occurred on "private" property.
Oh, come on, Dr. Harr, don't play dumb (or to pretend that your readers are dumb). The judge wrote in his opinion that you sued under section 1983; that section 1983 requires "state action"; and that Duke cannot have performed any "state action" because it is a private institution. Ergo, you sued under an inapplicable statute.
That's how a judge writes an opinion: "plaintiff sues for X; X requires proof of A, B & C; the plaintiff doesn't allege C; therefore his claim is dismissed." (You are an experienced, if uniformly unsuccessful, litigant; doubtless, you have seen opinions like that many times before.) As Anon. at 3:9 AM pointed out, the judge is not required to tell you what other statutes apply to private institutions. (Hint: that lawsuit you keep harping about where a woman athlete sued Duke for discrimination in its athletic programs was not brought under section 1983.)
Having answered that, Dr. Harr, when will you answer the questions I asked you on November 10, 2015 at 10:55 AM?
True, Meier did not want Crystal to testify, but the reason is that he was afraid that she would bring up medical issues related to Daye's death. During one of my visits, she told me that Meier kept telling her not to mention any medical issues... repeatedly reinforcing her not to talk about any medical issues. During his direct examination of Mangum, Meier and prosecutor Coggins-Franks stayed away from questions that would require medical issues in response.
Crystal did not personally witness any of Mr. Daye's medical treatment, and was not an expert witness. As such, she had no right to mention any medical issues in her testimony; if she had, the judge would have shut her down instantly. Had Meier asked her in his direct examination about medical issues, the judge would have chewed him out good, probably in front of the jury. Once again, your ignorance of the law makes you advocate for strategies that would cause Crystal far more harm than good.
"Actually the race of the guard was irrelevant to the story."
The story was about a Wake County inmate (Shon McClain) beaten to death by a detention officer (Markeith Council).
You made a video that correctly identified the race of the inmate, but incorrectly portrayed the race of the detention officer.
At the time, you attempted to argue that no news outlet had a picture of the detention officer -- so you use a "generic exemplar" that happened to be white.
When a poster discovered that a photo of Markeith Council had been available from the N&O prior to the creation of your cartoon, you simply stopped commenting on it.
So you're a liar as well as a racist.
A Lawyer said...
"'True, Meier did not want Crystal to testify, but the reason is that he was afraid that she would bring up medical issues related to Daye's death. During one of my visits, she told me that Meier kept telling her not to mention any medical issues... repeatedly reinforcing her not to talk about any medical issues. During his direct examination of Mangum, Meier and prosecutor Coggins-Franks stayed away from questions that would require medical issues in response.'"
"Crystal did not personally witness any of Mr. Daye's medical treatment, and was not an expert witness. As such, she had no right to mention any medical issues in her testimony; if she had, the judge would have shut her down instantly. Had Meier asked her in his direct examination about medical issues, the judge would have chewed him out good, probably in front of the jury. Once again, your ignorance of the law makes you advocate for strategies that would cause Crystal far more harm than good."
Since Sid has produced no evidence to support his conclusions and there is no argument he can make under the law in support of his position, all he can do is baselessly slime the people involved in the case. This strategy (as Sid should have learned by now) is not effective advocacy. It is not a substitute for a sound argument based on the facts and the law and it is not going to get Mangum out of prison.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Sid wrote: "She told me that when she got off the stand and looked at Meier she was struck by the appearance of relief on his face."
As well he should have been. After all, because of Sid's breach of the attorney client confidentiality, the state knew all about Dr. Roberts expert opinion. Worse for Crystal, she insisted, at Sid's urging, that she be given a written report. A written report that the state was entitled to present. Yes, he was very relieved that she didn't open the door to having her own expert confirm her guilt.
Walt-in-Durham
Abe wrote: "Since Sid has produced no evidence to support his conclusions and there is no argument he can make under the law in support of his position, all he can do is baselessly slime the people involved in the case. This strategy (as Sid should have learned by now) is not effective advocacy. It is not a substitute for a sound argument based on the facts and the law and it is not going to get Mangum out of prison."
Ding, Ding, Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!
Walt-in-Durham
Sid wrote: "Judge Schroeder did not write in his opinion that I filed the lawsuit under the
wrong statute. What he said was that I failed to recognize that Duke University is a "private" institution and that the alleged incident occurred on "private" property."
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt (manual buzzer) Wrong Sid. State action is a necessity for a 1983 claim. You were told who you had to sue to have a successful 1983 claim and you refused to sue that person. You are not willing to listen to good advice. Instead you follow your fixed false beliefs no matter how unsuccessful they might make you.
Walt-in-Durham
A lawyer wrote: "Oh, come on, Dr. Harr, don't play dumb (or to pretend that your readers are dumb). The judge wrote in his opinion that you sued under section 1983; that section 1983 requires "state action"; and that Duke cannot have performed any "state action" because it is a private institution. Ergo, you sued under an inapplicable statute."
Ding, Ding, Ding, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!
Walt-in-Durham
In his latest letter mr. harr the hypocrite continues to misrepresent. He claims he hs beenworking for four year sto obtain justice for crystal, the murderess/false accuser.
He has been working for four years to get crystal a pass for her crimes.
Abe states: Since Sid has produced no evidence to support his conclusions and there is no argument he can make under the law in support of his position, all he can do is baselessly slime the people involved in the case.
This is unfair.
Sid can also pretend that his medical opinion as a retired physician is more credible than the expert opinions of Nichols and Roberts and thus that the expert opinions should be disregarded. The inexpert opinion of a personal friend of the defendant is always less biased than the expert opinions of independent experts for each side.
He can also pretend that his legal opinion as a frequent litigant who consistently fails in court is more credible than the legal advice provided by actual lawyers, including Shella, Vann, Holmes, Meier, Petersen, Walt, A Lawyer and others, and that thus the legal advice provided by lawyers should be disregarded. The analysis of case law should be ignored by all parties because Sid does not have access to the law library of his choice.
This strategy (as Sid should have learned by now) is not effective advocacy. It is not a substitute for a sound argument based on the facts and the law and it is not going to get Mangum out of prison.
His ability to pretend is also not effective advocacy.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Abe states: Since Sid has produced no evidence to support his conclusions and there is no argument he can make under the law in support of his position, all he can do is baselessly slime the people involved in the case.
This is unfair.
Sid can also pretend that his medical opinion as a retired physician is more credible than the expert opinions of Nichols and Roberts and thus that the expert opinions should be disregarded. The inexpert opinion of a personal friend of the defendant is always less biased than the expert opinions of independent experts for each side.
He can also pretend that his legal opinion as a frequent litigant who consistently fails in court is more credible than the legal advice provided by actual lawyers, including Shella, Vann, Holmes, Meier, Petersen, Walt, A Lawyer and others, and that thus the legal advice provided by lawyers should be disregarded. The analysis of case law should be ignored by all parties because Sid does not have access to the law library of his choice.
This strategy (as Sid should have learned by now) is not effective advocacy. It is not a substitute for a sound argument based on the facts and the law and it is not going to get Mangum out of prison.
His ability to pretend is also not effective advocacy.
Bottom line is simply this with respect to Daye's death: Neither Dr. Nichols nor Dr. Roberts can provide a simple explanation as to how a stab wound to the torso caused brain death... the reason for which Daye was electively removed from life-support. ".. because of some catastrophic complication" is not an explanation. My explanation on the other hand is thorough, comprehensive, and logical... and it includes the esophageal intubation which the prosecution and Mangum's attorneys did their best to refrain from mentioning.
I may be a friend of Mangum, but my premise is objective and based upon facts present in prosecution discovery. Conclusions by Drs. Nichols and Roberts are without foundation... Nichols' being completely ambiuous, and Roberts' being simplistic and unrelated to a medical nexus -- that because the stab wound was responsible for Daye winding up in the hospital, the inflicter of the stab wound (Mangum) is responsible for any outcome... including malpractice by the staff. Ridiculous!
Nifong Supporter said...
"Bottom line is simply this with respect to Daye's death: Neither Dr. Nichols nor Dr. Roberts can provide a simple explanation as to how a stab wound to the torso caused brain death... the reason for which Daye was electively removed from life-support. '.. because of some catastrophic complication' is not an explanation."
Yes they did explain how it happened. Because you, an untrained, inexperienced graduate of the medical school of the University of Oregon, are unable to comprehend the explanation, that does not impeach the explanation.
"My explanation on the other hand is thorough, comprehensive, and logical... and it includes the esophageal intubation which the prosecution and Mangum's attorneys did their best to refrain from mentioning."
No it isn't. It is a product of your thorough lack f ytaining, your inexperience, and your desire to get your favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.
"I may be a friend of Mangum,"
Considering all the harm you have caused her, that is just another of your delusions.
"but my premise is objective and based upon facts present in prosecution discovery"
Again, it is based on your thorough lack of experience, lack of training and your desire to get your favorite murderess/false acuser a pass for her crimes.
"Conclusions by Drs. Nichols and Roberts are without foundation... Nichols' being completely ambiuous(sic), and Roberts' being simplistic and unrelated to a medical nexus"
No they aren't. And because of your thorough lack of training and experience you are incapable of determining what is a medical nexus.
"-- that because the stab wound was responsible for Daye winding up in the hospital, the inflicter of the stab wound (Mangum) is responsible for any outcome..."
ASince Mr. Daye would never have beenexposed to the risk of complications had crystal not stabbed him, crystal is responsible for what happened to him, regardless of your meaningless proclamation to the contrary.
"including malpractice by the staff."
There is n evidence of malpractice. And you, the untrained, inexperienced graduate of the University of Oregon School of Medicine, are not capable of recognizing malpractice.
"Ridiculous!"
Yes, ridiculous. You must take some kinfd of masochistic pleasure in being thoroughly ridiculous, in addition to being thoroughly untrained and thoroughly inexperienced in the practice of medicine.
Sid said:
"[M]y premise is objective and based upon facts present in prosecution discovery."
Your premise has failed to persuade anyone who is involved with, has examined, or is familiar with the law and facts of the case. It is also not shared by any doctors or other medical professionals.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
When will Dr. Harr answer the questions I asked him on November 10, 2015 at 10:55 AM?
You've never spoken to Dr. Roberts - you have no idea if she can explain that question. Her attorneys did talk to Dr. Roberts. They know what explanation she'd provide, and the realized it would hurt Crystal.
Your goal is clearly just to hurt Crystal.
Sid wrote: "... because the stab wound was responsible for Daye winding up in the hospital, the inflicter of the stab wound (Mangum) is responsible for any outcome... including malpractice by the staff." Another example of Sid's fixed false belief. Time and time again, I have cited authority for the proposition that contributory negligence has no place in the criminal law. St. v. Gray, 180 N.C. 697, 701 (1920), St. v. McIver, 175 N.C. 761, (1917). You have long sense passed the point of refusing to learn. Now, you are just reinforcing the fact that you suffer from a fixed false belief form of delusion.
"Ridiculous!
Yes, your argument is ridiculous. No advocate who cares one whit about advocacy continues to make the same arguments time and time again when he knows they are built on a false premise.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
It just so happened that the Supreme Being had plans for me other than being an outstanding physician. Undoubtedly he foresaw that the legal system in North Carolina would go corrupt with widespread racial disparity, so I was deemed the Chosen One and my life was filled with experiences including legal engagements that prepared me to be able to now act as rectifier with regards to Crystal Mangum's plight... as well as Shan Carter's and others. Had it not been for those other lawsuits in my past, which is akin to Jedi training, I would not be able to effectively advocate for Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum, and others who are egregiously mistreated by the legal system in North Carolina.
Dr. Harr, did you ever once win any lawsuit against anyone in any court?
If your answer is "yes," please tell us the case name and number so I can verify your claim.
If the answer is "no," please tell us why a long record of failure in court prepares you to be an advocate on behalf of anyone?
And if your answer is "I think I won something once but I can't remember the details," please tell us why we should believe you.
November 10, 2015 at 10:55 AM
Before I became involved with legal experiences many years ago, I was naive enough to believe that the legal system was fair, that all lawyers diligently worked in the best interests of their clients, and that all judges were endowed with morality, honesty, and integrity.
Had I, at that time and with that mind-set, tried to help Crystal Mangum or Mike Nifong, I would have been at a total loss as to how to go about it. Had it not been for my past experiences with the legal system there is no way that I could launch my current offensive to see that Crystal Mangum will be exonerated and freed... that time is not far off in the future.
True, I do not recall winning any of the legal contests in which I was involved years ago, but that did not preclude me from learning from those experiences. In fact, I believe, it is through losses that more valuable lessons are learned. From my experiences, in which I may have lost the contest at the time, I was a winner when it came to recognizing and/or developing legal strategies. So, even though I may not have prevailed in the courts years ago, that does not mean that I did not gain invaluable foresight and legal acumen from those losses. I believe that because of those earlier losses I am better prepared now to help Mangum than I would have been had I been victorious previously.
I hope this answers your questions. Let me know if further elucidation is required.
This is right up Sidney's alley:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article44674701.html
Nifong Supporter said...
"Before I became involved with legal experiences many years ago, I was naive enough to believe that the legal system was fair, that all lawyers diligently worked in the best interests of their clients, and that all judges were endowed with morality, honesty, and integrity."
mr. harr the hypocrite, on this blog you have demmonstratedyou do not now what either honesty or integtity is.
"Had I, at that time and with that mind-set, tried to help Crystal Mangum or Mike Nifong, I would have been at a total loss as to how to go about it."
How have you helped either crystal or da nigfong. crystal is still incarcerated and da nifong, quite justly, is brred from practicing law.
"Had it not been for my past experiences with the legal system there is no way that I could launch my current offensive to see that Crystal Mangum will be exonerated and freed... that time is not far off in the future."
Yes you are offensive. You have been promising for years that crystal will be exonerated. It hasn't happened, largey to your legal incompetence. You remain an incompetent advocate. For the near future and beyond that portends that crystal will serve out her sentence.
"True, I do not recall winning any of the legal contests in which I was involved years ago, but that did not preclude me from learning from those experiences."
Judging from the results of your most recent ineffective legal endeavors you haven't learned anything.
"In fact, I believe, it is through losses that more valuable lessons are learned. From my experiences, in which I may have lost the contest at the time, I was a winner when it came to recognizing and/or developing legal strategies."
Winner, you? Shirley you jest.
"So, even though I may not have prevailed in the courts years ago, that does not mean that I did not gain invaluable foresight and legal acumen from those losses."
Again, from the results of your most recent endeavors, it is obvious you have gained no legal foresight or acumen. You continue to lose.
"I believe that because of those earlier losses I am better prepared now to help Mangum than I would have been had I been victorious previously."
That is really a non sensical statement.
"I hope this answers your questions. Let me know if further elucidation is required."
It doesn't answer anything. It is just you trying, ineffectively, to cover your incompetent butt. And yu are again presuming a fact not in evidence, tht you are capable of providing elucidation.
mr. harr the hypocrite, do you really believe your string of abject failures makes you impressive?
Walt said...
Sid wrote: "... because the stab wound was responsible for Daye winding up in the hospital, the inflicter of the stab wound (Mangum) is responsible for any outcome... including malpractice by the staff." Another example of Sid's fixed false belief. Time and time again, I have cited authority for the proposition that contributory negligence has no place in the criminal law. St. v. Gray, 180 N.C. 697, 701 (1920), St. v. McIver, 175 N.C. 761, (1917). You have long sense passed the point of refusing to learn. Now, you are just reinforcing the fact that you suffer from a fixed false belief form of delusion.
"Ridiculous!
Yes, your argument is ridiculous. No advocate who cares one whit about advocacy continues to make the same arguments time and time again when he knows they are built on a false premise.
Walt-in-Durham
Hey, Walt.
Looked up State v. Gray, and find the cases are not in the least related or relevant to one another. In the State v. Gray case, the defendant tried to place contributory negligence on the three-year-old child for running into the street in front of defendant's truck.
However, in State v. Mangum, I make no claim that there is contributory negligence by Daye... with the possible exception of his being an alcoholic and being intoxicated which set up his delirium tremens following his hospitalization. My position is that Daye's death and brain death had nothing to do with the stab wound, but rather an intervening and proximate cause of medical malpractice with the esophageal intubation by a third party.
I do not even know if contributory negligence could be applied to a party other than the victim or decedent. Can it?
Nifong Supporter said...
"My position is that Daye's death and brain death had nothing to do with the stab wound, but rather an intervening and proximate cause of medical malpractice with the esophageal intubation by a third party."
Except no one has established that medical malpractice took place.
I say again, mr.harr the hypocrite, with his lack of medical training and his lack of legal experience, is not capable of determining whether or not malpractice happened.
We see here more evidence of mr. harr's hypocrisy. He rants and raves that it was inappropriate for AG Cooper to "proclaim" the lacrosse defendants innocent(and everyone except mr. harr the hypocrite realizes that AG Cooper proclaimed nothing). But mr.harr the hypocrite believes his proclamations of malpractice on the part of Duke established that malpractice happened.
Sid asks: I do not even know if contributory negligence could be applied to a party other than the victim or decedent. Can it?
Sid, please stop playing dumb.
This is an incredibly uninformed question. Contributory negligence arises when more than one party contributed to a bad result. It is not rare. This subject has been discussed frequently on this blog. You may remember the discussion about the man who slugged another man, who then fell into the street and a car ran over him. That was a discussion of contributory negligence.
You (and Crystal) would be well-served if you made a genuine attempt to understand and learn from the discussion on this board. It would prevent you from provide absolutely abysmal legal advice.
Anon at 3:17 wrote: You (and Crystal) would be well-served if you made a genuine attempt to understand and learn from the discussion on this board. It would prevent you from provide absolutely abysmal legal advice."
Ding, Ding, Ding. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!
So I'd like to know where you got the notion
Said I'd like to know where you got the notion
To rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby
Rock the boat, don't tip the boat over
Rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby
Rock the boat
Ever since our voyage of love began
Your touch has thrilled me like the rush of the wind
And your arms have held me safe from a rolling sea
There's always been a quiet place to harbor you and me
Our love is like a ship on the ocean
We've been sailing with a cargo full of love and devotion
So I'd like to know where you got the notion
Said I'd like to know where you got the notion
To rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby
Rock the boat, don't tip the boat over
Rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby
Rock the boat
Up to now we sailed through every storm
And I've always had your tender lips to keep me warm
Oh I need to have the strength that flows from you
Don't let me drift away my dear, when love can see me through
Our love is like a ship on the ocean
We've been sailing with a cargo full of love and devotion
So I'd like to know where you got the notion
Said I'd like to know where you got the notion
So I'd like to know where you got the notion
Said I'd like to know where you got the notion
To rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby
Rock the boat, don't tip the boat over
Rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby
Rock the boat, ooh
Rock the boat, rock on with yo bad self
Rock the boat, rock on with yo bad self
Rock the boat, rock on with yo bad self
Rock the boat, rock on with yo bad self
Rock the boat
Rock the boat
Rock the boat
Rock the boat
True, I do not recall winning any of the legal contests in which I was involved years ago, but that did not preclude me from learning from those experiences. In fact, I believe, it is through losses that more valuable lessons are learned.
Valuable lessons can be learned from defeats, but (judging by your two failed lawsuits against Duke) you don't seem to have learned any. For your own sake and everyone else's, please at least look up the phrase "res judicata" before you go suing Duke again.
From my experiences, in which I may have lost the contest at the time, I was a winner when it came to recognizing and/or developing legal strategies. So, even though I may not have prevailed in the courts years ago, that does not mean that I did not gain invaluable foresight and legal acumen from those losses.
I haven't seen it in your litigations with the State Bar or Duke University.
I believe that because of those earlier losses I am better prepared now to help Mangum than I would have been had I been victorious previously.
And yet nothing you have done has helped her. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid asks: I do not even know if contributory negligence could be applied to a party other than the victim or decedent. Can it?
Sid, please stop playing dumb.
This is an incredibly uninformed question. Contributory negligence arises when more than one party contributed to a bad result. It is not rare. This subject has been discussed frequently on this blog. You may remember the discussion about the man who slugged another man, who then fell into the street and a car ran over him. That was a discussion of contributory negligence.
You (and Crystal) would be well-served if you made a genuine attempt to understand and learn from the discussion on this board. It would prevent you from provide absolutely abysmal legal advice.
Further edification is required.
I don't quite agree with you that the example you gave for contributory negligence involving a third party is a muster-passer. Who for example would you designate as being responsible for the contributory negligence... the person who struck the victim, the driver of the car that ran over the victim, or the victim himself?
For a defense using "contributory negligence," it would seem to me that it would be necessary for the injured party to have contributed to his/her injury... such as the child in State v. Gray who ran in front of the speeding truck. It is crystal clear in that case that the driver was negligent in speeding, but that the child contributed to her injury by negligently running into the street.
Tell me how that jibes with the guy who got punched and was run over by a car?
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
True, I do not recall winning any of the legal contests in which I was involved years ago, but that did not preclude me from learning from those experiences. In fact, I believe, it is through losses that more valuable lessons are learned.
Valuable lessons can be learned from defeats, but (judging by your two failed lawsuits against Duke) you don't seem to have learned any. For your own sake and everyone else's, please at least look up the phrase "res judicata" before you go suing Duke again.
From my experiences, in which I may have lost the contest at the time, I was a winner when it came to recognizing and/or developing legal strategies. So, even though I may not have prevailed in the courts years ago, that does not mean that I did not gain invaluable foresight and legal acumen from those losses.
I haven't seen it in your litigations with the State Bar or Duke University.
I believe that because of those earlier losses I am better prepared now to help Mangum than I would have been had I been victorious previously.
And yet nothing you have done has helped her. Quite the contrary, in fact.
A Lawyer, you suggest that I have not helped Ms. Mangum, but have, in fact, hurt her position. I don't see how you come to that conclusion. My actions have not yet gained Mangum her freedom, but the stage has been set for her exoneration and liberty.
It was my involvement in May 2012 that resulted in Mr. Vann obtaining a forensic pathologist... Dr. Roberts. My letter writing campaign and online sharlogs and productions exposed to the public the problems with the prosecution against Mangum. (Do you realize that you and other visitors to this site are the only ones who know the truth about Reginald Daye's death -- with the exception of those involved in the conspiracy?) In assisting Mangum with her court filings, I effectively removed the possibility of a conviction for first degree murder by bringing up that Daye in an interview admitted giving the cashier's checks to Mangum.
I advised Mangum to obtain copies of prosecution discovery -- without which I would not be able to build her defense based upon medical malpractice and misconduct by the medical examiner.
Ms. Mangum might not have been convicted had she followed my advice and represented herself at trial instead of placing her faith in the legal system and her turncoat defense attorney. Following the travesty of an appeal filed by her appellant defense attorney which miserably failed, my input into the Pro Se Petition for Discretionary Relief has now been in the hands of the NC Supreme Court since August 11, 2015.
I am of the strong belief that Mangum will prevail... this being the first and only time that the adjudicator in her case has been presented with the truths of the case... especially concerning Daye's autopsy and circumstances of his death. Let's see how things turn out.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Further edification is required."
However you are incapable of responding to elucidation. Your activity on this blog establishes that between any and all doubt.
"I don't quite agree with you that the example you gave for contributory negligence involving a third party is a muster-passer."
You also "don't quite agree" that crystal was not raped. That she was not raped was established beyond any and all doubt.
"Who for example would you designate as being responsible for the contributory negligence... the person who struck the victim, the driver of the car that ran over the victim, or the victim himself?
For a defense using "contributory negligence," it would seem to me that it would be necessary for the injured party to have contributed to his/her injury... such as the child in State v. Gray who ran in front of the speeding truck. It is crystal clear in that case that the driver was negligent in speeding, but that the child contributed to her injury by negligently running into the street.
Tell me how that jibes with the guy who got punched and was run over by a car?"
So? None of that establishes that anyone other than crystal was responsible for killing Reginald Daye.
Given that Sid thinks it wa better to fail at every lawsuit he's been a part of, rather than simply research and learn to do it right the first time - I think we can see why he was also a failure as a doctor. Those poor patients.
To my surprise, one hundred stories high
People getting loose y'all, getting down on the roof
Folks are screaming, out of control
It was so entertaining when the boogie started to explode
I heard somebody say
disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
(Burn baby burn) disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
Satisfaction came in a chain reaction
(Burnin')
I couldn't get enough, so I had to self-destruct
The heat was on, rising to the top
Everybody going strong, and that is when my spark got hot
I heard somebody say
disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down y'all
(Burn baby burn) disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
Up above my head
I hear music in the air
That makes me know
There's a party somewhere
Satisfaction came in a chain reaction
(Burnin')
I couldn't get enough, so I had to self-destruct
The heat was on, rising to the top
Everybody going strong, and that is when my spark got hot
I heard somebody say
disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
(Burn baby burn) disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
burn that mother down
(Burn baby burn) disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
when my spark gets hot
(Just can't stop) when my spark gets hot
when my spark gets hot
(Just can't stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can't stop) when my spark gets hot
When my spark gets hot
when my spark gets hot
(Just can't stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can't stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can't stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can't stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can't stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can't stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can't stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can't stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can't stop) when my spark gets hot
disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
(Burn baby burn) disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
(Burn baby burn)
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
(Burn baby burn) disco inferno
mr. harr's mantra is, crystal would have necer been convicted if she had followed my advice. Can anyone think of a more egregious example of victim blaming?
Hey Sid, so I'd like to know where you got the notion?
Sid asks: I don't quite agree with you that the example you gave for contributory negligence involving a third party is a muster-passer. Who for example would you designate as being responsible for the contributory negligence... the person who struck the victim, the driver of the car that ran over the victim, or the victim himself?
The hypothetical example demonstrates that more than one party can have legal responsibility. Obviously, more facts are necessary to determine the specific answer.
For example, consider a situation in which the man who punched the other was completely unprovoked. For example, he may have been playing the "knockout game." Further assume that the punch would not ordinarily have been fatal. If so, the puncher would have been guilty of battery of some sort.
Now assume that a speeding drunk driver was driving in the gutter rather than in the driving lane. Obviously, he would not have killed him if there was no man in the gutter. If that had been the case, he would have been guilty of DWI and speeding.
Now further assume the the punch knocked the man into the gutter where the drunk driver ran over and killed him.
Who is responsible for the man's death?
The answer is BOTH the man who punched the victim AND the drunk driver. This example illustrates that there can be MORE THAN ONE proximate cause.
Your analysis appears to be based on the belief that there can be only one proximate cause of a death.
I wonder about the next installment from mr.harr, how he explains that his failed career as a physician and his filing and losing a string of frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits made him a great man who can change reality by proclamation.
So I'd like to know where you got the notion
Said I'd like to know where you got the notion
To rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby
Rock the boat, don't tip the boat over
Rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby
Rock the boat
In assisting Mangum with her court filings, I effectively removed the possibility of a conviction for first degree murder by bringing up that Daye in an interview admitted giving the cashier's checks to Mangum.
You have been shown a hundred times that (1) felony murder was not charged in this case, and that (2) larceny of a chose in action can never be the basis for a felony murder charge. When you keep saying that, I have to wonder if you are arguing in bad faith or if you are not in contact with reality.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid asks: I don't quite agree with you that the example you gave for contributory negligence involving a third party is a muster-passer. Who for example would you designate as being responsible for the contributory negligence... the person who struck the victim, the driver of the car that ran over the victim, or the victim himself?
The hypothetical example demonstrates that more than one party can have legal responsibility. Obviously, more facts are necessary to determine the specific answer.
For example, consider a situation in which the man who punched the other was completely unprovoked. For example, he may have been playing the "knockout game." Further assume that the punch would not ordinarily have been fatal. If so, the puncher would have been guilty of battery of some sort.
Now assume that a speeding drunk driver was driving in the gutter rather than in the driving lane. Obviously, he would not have killed him if there was no man in the gutter. If that had been the case, he would have been guilty of DWI and speeding.
Now further assume the the punch knocked the man into the gutter where the drunk driver ran over and killed him.
Who is responsible for the man's death?
The answer is BOTH the man who punched the victim AND the drunk driver. This example illustrates that there can be MORE THAN ONE proximate cause.
Your analysis appears to be based on the belief that there can be only one proximate cause of a death.
My argument is not based on the proximate cause issue; rather it is based on negligence of the plaintiff or family or representative of the family. Leaving the proximate cause totally out of the equation, for example in the State v. Gray case: the little girl ran into the street and was struck by a speeding truck whereupon she is injured or killed. The truck driver's defense is that the little girl contributed to her injury or death by being negligent and running into the street... that is her negligence contributed to the unfortunate accident.
It seems to me therefore that contributory negligence really has nothing to do with the proximate cause of death issue. Are our minds in sync on this issue?
A Lawyer said...
In assisting Mangum with her court filings, I effectively removed the possibility of a conviction for first degree murder by bringing up that Daye in an interview admitted giving the cashier's checks to Mangum.
You have been shown a hundred times that (1) felony murder was not charged in this case, and that (2) larceny of a chose in action can never be the basis for a felony murder charge. When you keep saying that, I have to wonder if you are arguing in bad faith or if you are not in contact with reality.
A Lawyer, is there some evidence you have to support your position that the Larceny Chose of Action charge was not used to upgrade the murder charge to first degree?
To me, it is obvious that the only reason for filing such a frivolous charge as Larceny of Chose in Action is because it is a Class H felony for use in upgrading to first degree. There was no other reason for filing the charge... especially since Daye admitted to giving the cashier's checks to Mangum. Can you come up with a reason for the Larceny of Chose in Action charge?
Nifong Supporter said...
"A Lawyer, is there some evidence you have to support your position that the Larceny Chose of Action charge was not used to upgrade the murder charge to first degree?"
mr. no legal training, no legal experience harr, the issue is, do you, as the one making the assertion, have any proof that "Larceny Chose of Action" was used as an excuse to upgrade the charge to murder 1?
Once again you show what a thoruoghly incompetent advocate you are.
Sid asks:
A Lawyer, is there some evidence you have to support your position that the Larceny Chose of Action charge was not used to upgrade the murder charge to first degree?
To me, it is obvious that the only reason for filing such a frivolous charge as Larceny of Chose in Action is because it is a Class H felony for use in upgrading to first degree. There was no other reason for filing the charge... especially since Daye admitted to giving the cashier's checks to Mangum. Can you come up with a reason for the Larceny of Chose in Action charge?
I will respond with several observations, all of which have been made before and all of which you have ignored. Readers are reluctant to spend a lot of time researching a question as a result. If you don't like an answer, irrespective of the support for that answer, you simply ignore the answer and pretend it doesn't exist.
I note that I believe this charge was weak.
1. The felony murder change was not part of the judege's instructions to the jury. If it had been in play, it would have been included. This omission was not an oversight. If the judge made a mistake, the prosecution would have objected.
2. Tracey Cline, the district attorney at the time of the indictment, was known for overcharging defendants. Overcharging is used to pressure defendants to accept plea bargains and not go to trial. Because she is a friend of Nifong, you treat Cline as if she is immune from criticism.
3. You frequently claim that because Daye gave the checks to Mangum for her to give to the rental agency, she could not possibly be guilty of larceny. In making this claim, you appear to take the position that his giving the checks to her is irrevokable. In other words, he has no right to tel to give them back to him.
Sid,
State v Gray makes the point that contributory negligence is not a defense in criminal law. In other words, if a person commits a crime, and if, as a result of other factors beyond that person's control, the results from the crime are much worse that would ordinarily have been expected, the person committing the crime is nevertheless responsible for the outcome.
The hypothetical example i provided applies that concept to a situation in which two parties independently committed crimes. The person who was punched would not have died if both of those crimes had not been committed. The puncher is guilty of murder. He cannot claim that the death was responsibility of the drunk driver. The due is driver is guilty of manslaughter. He cannot claim the death is the responsibility of the puncher. One death; two criminals are responsible.
I raised the concept of proximate cause as well. Each criminal act was a proximate cause of the death.
So I'd like to know where you got the notion
Said I'd like to know where you got the notion
To rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby
Rock the boat, don't tip the boat over
Rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby
Rock the boat
A Lawyer, is there some evidence you have to support your position that the Larceny Chose of Action charge was not used to upgrade the murder charge to first degree?
To me, it is obvious that the only reason for filing such a frivolous charge as Larceny of Chose in Action is because it is a Class H felony for use in upgrading to first degree. There was no other reason for filing the charge... especially since Daye admitted to giving the cashier's checks to Mangum. Can you come up with a reason for the Larceny of Chose in Action charge?
November 14, 2015 at 8:53 PM
Yes - as has been repeatedly shown to you, and you have refused to learn, showing that you have no real interest in helping - Larceny of a Chose in Action CANNOT be used for felony murder. So, it wasn't. You have the jury instructions - read them - they don't mention felony murder anywhere.
The proof is that it's not possible. The 1st Degree was based on premeditation and deliberation, not felony murder.
Either you know this site is a joke, and you just like abusing Crystal, or you really are unable to read and comprehend - because it has repeatedly been explained, with the statute and case law, that the Larceny of Chose in Action is not something that can lead to felony murder.
Yo Sid,
So I'd like to know where you got the notion
Said I'd like to know where you got the notion
To rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby
Rock the boat, don't tip the boat over
Rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby
Rock the boat
Where Sid is so abusive and damaging to Crystal is he keeps up his delusions with Felony Murder and the pre-trial motions to dismiss - both things we absolutely no basis in law or procedure.
But, since he is convinced of them, and has convinced Crystal - when her attorneys tell her they aren't issues - rather than change his mind, Sid uses that as proof that her attorneys want to betray her - and he uses these false notions (among many others) to drive wedges between Crystal and those who really are trying to help her.
It's the same thing with his PDR - he's convinced Crystal (apparently) that the Supreme Court will do something they have zero legal power/basis to do - read a poorly drafted, and completely improper, PDR and set her free. They won't. All they could do is allow the appeal to go forward, which would take at least another year.
The truth doesn't matter to Sid. Emotionally abusing Crystal does.
You don't understand--
Being Sid means never having to say you're sorry
So far as I can see, Sidney is not trying to abuse her. More likely, he just enjoys visiting her. He finds it pleasant to spend his Sunday afternoons with a reasonably good looking woman thirty years his junior.I would guess she's nice enough when she's not under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. She thinks he's a nice older man who is going to get her out "sooner rather than later." It's too bad that her friends (friends her age) don't get a chance to see her, but what can you do? She thinks it's better to do as Sidney tells her.
http://www.puckermob.com/lifestyle/sorry-but-sarcastic-people-are-actually-smarter-than-you-are
Kenny,
A sarcastic man may be a wounded man, but apparently a sarcastically man is also an intelligent man.
So, not only is Guiowen a wounded man he is apparently an evil genius as well.
Kenny
Perhaps you can explain why Sid continues to push incorrect and false legal theories (like felony murder) and uses his false beliefs to convince Crystal that her attorneys who don't agree aren't right. They are attempting to betray her. That's the problem, and why it seems clear Sid is more interested in manipulating and controlling Crystal than helping her.
Felony murder was not ever involved in this case. Yet Sid keeps pretending it was/is.
Why?
kenhyderal said at November 15, 2015 at 9:41 PM
"So, not only is Guiowen a wounded man he is apparently an evil genius as well.'
Genius yes. Evil no.
The only evil people who post on this blog are mr. harr and kenny hissy fit.
Anonymous said...
Crystal Magnum is the anti-Viagra.No white man would touch her.
Get your racist bullspit out of here.
Felony murder was not ever involved in this case. Yet Sid keeps pretending it was/is.
Why?
I keep asking him that. He's either delusional, or just arguing in bad faith. He's been shown 100 times that felony murder (a) wasn't charged in this case, and (b) couldn't have possibly been charged, because larceny is not a "violent felony" under the felony murder statute.
I think he does it to help shelter and delude Crystal. He takes a position that is clearly wrong, but has convinced her of - then when her attorneys refuse to follow that flawed advice, and tell her that it's incorrect, Sid uses that to distance herself from the attorneys, because he won't admit he's wrong, he says it is evidence the attorneys are trying to betray her.
It's classic abusive treatment - you try to isolate the victim and make them think you are the only one looking out for them.
Post a Comment