Thursday, April 28, 2016

Lawsuit against Wake County D.A. Lorrin Freeman

744 comments:

1 – 200 of 744   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

harrian hypocrisy:

In his latest frivolous lawsuit, he states "By definition a District Attorney is: 'an officer of the court who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system'".

This is the same harr who says about nifong, the DA who had indicted three innocent men, who had them charged with a crime which never happened, who tried to manufacture evidence against them(crystal's unreliable identification of themin an improper lineup, who concealed evidence which exonerated them, was a decent honorable honest minister of justice who only tried to conduct a good faith prosecution.

It is obvious that this latest attempt by harr to prosecute a frivolous, non meritorious lawsuit, should be dismissed before it ever gets started because it is obvious that harr has no concept of what a District Attorney has to do.

Anonymous said...

harr repeats the lie, that crystal was the "victim/accuser" in the Duke Lacrosse hoax. This lie should result in a directed dismissal of harr's frivolous, non meritorious complaint.

Anonymous said...

harr says, again, that as a "retired physician" he knew the autopsy report was bogus. He is trying to render an expert medical opinion.

harr is the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training, who never achieved medical specialty board certification, and who devoted his post medical school career to filing and losing frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits. He has never performed surgery in his life. He has never performed an autopsy in his life.

He is no medical expert.

That he is rendering an expert medical opinion which he is not qualified to render is yet something else which should result in immediate dismissal of this latest frivolous, non meritorious lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

harr talks about the NC anti LGBT bill, which has no relevance to the Reginald Daye murder case or to anything else harr raves about.

Anonymous said...

harr claims that the actions of all the major participants suggest a conspiracy against mangum. If I am correct, that is not something which gives harr or anyone else a cause of action. harr has to have proof there was a conspiracy.He has none.

Anonymous said...

Still arguing felony murder ... in addition, since that is not filed in Mangum's criminal case, and is not a MAR, the Judge is without jurisdiction to do anything related to her incarceration.

So, once again, Sid does a filing that has zero chance of helping.

Good job Sid. Once again you are lying to Crystal while pretending to help.

Anonymous said...

This case will be dismissed very quickly due to lack of standing, and lack of stating a claim.

Anonymous said...

Sid ...

I am unclear why you refuse to learn, but here are a few things that you need to understand (all of which have been explained to you):

1. There was no felony murder - the Larceny of a Chose in Action cannot form the basis for felony murder.

2. The Larceny charges were dismissed. They are forever gone - you ask for a new trial on those charges - why? They were dismissed. Even if Crystal were to get a new trial, those charges could not be included - jeopardy has attached. They are gone forever.

3. Because she was convicted of 2nd Degree Murder - if she gets a new trial, the worst she can do is 2nd Degree Murder - the fact you keep asking for a new trial on 1st Degree Murder shows your true motive - you want her to get LWOP. Fortunately, the law would not allow that.

This lawsuit is hopelessly pathetic even by your delusional and low standards. Kenny, you still support your boy?

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 247 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 6 days since April 23rd, 45 days since the Ides of March and 3,240 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

A Lawyer said...

Anonymous said...
This case will be dismissed very quickly due to lack of standing, and lack of stating a claim.


To quote Walt: Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Anonymous said...

harr shows hoe much he, the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into medical residency training and who never achieved medical specialty board certification, resents physicians who are more accomplished than he is.

Walt said...

Anonymous A Lawyer wrote: "Anonymous said...
This case will be dismissed very quickly due to lack of standing, and lack of stating a claim.

To quote Walt: Ding! Ding! We have a winner!"


I concur. By now, Sid should know all about rule 12(b)(6). Sadly, he has shown no capacity to learn from his experiences. So he will be schooled once again on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

I bet he also gets a gatekeeper and other sanctions imposed.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

When are you going to tell us what happened (or was supposed to have happened) on April 23 that would lead to Mangum's exoneration and release? Your recent activity is limited to two frivolous lawsuits, neither of which will have any effect.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

When are you going to file lawsuits against President Obama and Attorney General Lynch?

Anonymous said...

harr, if your performance as an intern was as spectacular as your performance as an advocate, I can see why no residency program would accept you for training.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
harrian hypocrisy:

In his latest frivolous lawsuit, he states "By definition a District Attorney is: 'an officer of the court who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system'".

This is the same harr who says about nifong, the DA who had indicted three innocent men, who had them charged with a crime which never happened, who tried to manufacture evidence against them(crystal's unreliable identification of themin an improper lineup, who concealed evidence which exonerated them, was a decent honorable honest minister of justice who only tried to conduct a good faith prosecution.

It is obvious that this latest attempt by harr to prosecute a frivolous, non meritorious lawsuit, should be dismissed before it ever gets started because it is obvious that harr has no concept of what a District Attorney has to do.


The job description of a district attorney is readily available online... which was my source.

The question for you is: Do you believe that any district attorney has the right to ignore a complaint about a crime made by one of its citizens... and if so, why? Try and provide me with some enlightenment.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
harr says, again, that as a "retired physician" he knew the autopsy report was bogus. He is trying to render an expert medical opinion.

harr is the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training, who never achieved medical specialty board certification, and who devoted his post medical school career to filing and losing frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits. He has never performed surgery in his life. He has never performed an autopsy in his life.

He is no medical expert.

That he is rendering an expert medical opinion which he is not qualified to render is yet something else which should result in immediate dismissal of this latest frivolous, non meritorious lawsuit.


Not only a minimally trained/minimal experienced medical school graduate, but a high school graduate would be able to recognize discrepancies between the Nichols autopsy report and Daye's hospital records. It doesn't take a medical expert... something which I never professed to be.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Still arguing felony murder ... in addition, since that is not filed in Mangum's criminal case, and is not a MAR, the Judge is without jurisdiction to do anything related to her incarceration.

So, once again, Sid does a filing that has zero chance of helping.

Good job Sid. Once again you are lying to Crystal while pretending to help.


Felony murder is the only way for prosecutors to justify the first degree status of the murder charge... and that is precisely why Mangum was charged with Larceny of Chose in Action. Can you give a reason to support the larceny charge when Daye even admitted to Officer Marianne Bond that he gave the cashier's checks to Mangum? It is crystal clear that if the larceny charge was legitimate, then prosecutors would have filed it long before Daye died. Instead, it was filed in conjunction with the murder charge. I rest my case.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
This case will be dismissed very quickly due to lack of standing, and lack of stating a claim.


Of course I have standing. I am the aggrieved party and the district attorney is derelict in her duty by ignoring a citizen allegation of criminality. She has a duty to citizens to give reasonable attention to complaints and investigate meritorious ones. She can't merely ignore certain citizens and their complaints. As a result of her inaction, I have been injured due to loss of unencumbered interaction with a friend.

Anonymous said...

No, Sid, as has been explained - they proceeded for first on Premeditation and Deliberation. Felony Murder was never in the jury instructions, and was never at play. Larceny cannot form the basis of felony murder, as has been explained to you.

No wonder you've been a failure at everything in life ... you refuse to learn even basic things.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,

When are you going to tell us what happened (or was supposed to have happened) on April 23 that would lead to Mangum's exoneration and release? Your recent activity is limited to two frivolous lawsuits, neither of which will have any effect.


I am not sure about what you are referring... but I would guess that it would be related to the lawsuit filed against the district attorney. I respectfully disagree about its efficacy... we'll have to wait and see.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,

When are you going to file lawsuits against President Obama and Attorney General Lynch?


No such plans are in the works... and why should I? I have not even attempted to inform either of them of the injustices against Mangum.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
harr, if your performance as an intern was as spectacular as your performance as an advocate, I can see why no residency program would accept you for training.


In order to be accepted into a program, one usually must first apply.

As far as my life's course goes, the Man Upstairs obviously had more glorious designs for me other than being a top notch physician. I guess He valued my talents would be better used to battle a legal system that is cruel, corrupt, and racist.

Anonymous said...

Sid, help me out here. What are your talents? I haven't seen them yet.

Anonymous said...

ha ha ha

Anonymous said...

harr said:

"In order to be accepted into a program, one usually must first apply."

Did you apply,yes or no. If you did apply were you turned down, yes or know. If you were accepted, then why did you not finish residency and achieve board certification?

And:

"As far as my life's course goes, the Man Upstairs obviously had more glorious designs for me other than being a top notch physician."

So you admit your are not and never have been a "top notch physician". It takes a top nootch physician to be capable of rendering expert medical opinions, e.g. that an autopsy report was fraudulent, that there was no chance of complications after surgery for a colon wound which resulted in hours of exposure of the abdominal cavity to enteric pathogens.

And

"I guess He valued my talents would be better used to battle a legal system that is cruel, corrupt, and racist."

What you have advocated is: 1) crystal was raped. She lied about being raped; 2)nifong was a decent honorable prosecutor. nifong was a corrupt prosecutor who tried to convict innocent men of a crime which never happened; 3) Shan Carter acted in self defense. Shan Carter chased down and shot unarmed, fleeing Tyrone Baker, in the process killing an innocent 9 yer old boy; 4) that crystl did not murder Reginald Daye. She did.

You are obviously worshiping a false god.

guiowen said...

Sidney,
So why don't you try to contact Lynch and Obama?

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 246 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 7 days since April 23rd, 46 days since the Ides of March and 3,241 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

What Sid ignores - repeatedly (well among many) - the Federal Courts can't do anything. Obama cannot pardon Mangum, the Federal Judge cannot order a new trial. This is State Court.

A Lawyer said...

Of course I have standing. I am the aggrieved party and the district attorney is derelict in her duty by ignoring a citizen allegation of criminality. She has a duty to citizens to give reasonable attention to complaints and investigate meritorious ones. She can't merely ignore certain citizens and their complaints. As a result of her inaction, I have been injured due to loss of unencumbered interaction with a friend.

That does not constitute standing. The federal court will so hold.

Anyone who disagrees: I'll bet you $1,000.

Anonymous said...

I bet they get a gatekeeper order to prevent Sid from filing anymore Federal Lawsuits.

Anonymous said...

from harr:


"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,

When are you going to file lawsuits against President Obama and Attorney General Lynch?


No such plans are in the works... and why should I? I have not even attempted to inform either of them of the injustices against Mangum."

No one has perpetrated any injustices against crystal.

Anonymous said...

more from harr:

"Not only a minimally trained/minimal experienced medical school graduate, but a high school graduate would be able to recognize discrepancies between the Nichols autopsy report and Daye's hospital records. It doesn't take a medical expert... something which I never professed to be."

Another iteration of harr flashing a straw fisherman holding up a red herring. harr can not stand the reality, that he IS a minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never acce[ted into residency training and who never achieved medical board certification while Dr. Nichols, overall, is a trained, experienced, accomplished physician.

harr is a petty little ma who tries to hide from his inadequacty.

Anonymous said...

more from harr:

"Of course I have standing. I am the aggrieved party and the district attorney is derelict in her duty by ignoring a citizen allegation of criminality. She has a duty to citizens to give reasonable attention to complaints and investigate meritorious ones. She can't merely ignore certain citizens and their complaints. As a result of her inaction, I have been injured due to loss of unencumbered interaction with a friend."

Similar to harr's deluded belief, that because hefiles a lawsuit it must be litigated in court.

I believe if a citizen observes a crime, that citizen should report it to the police, who then investigate. harr feels that he can bypass the p olice and establish probable cause just by declaring it is so.

Judging from harr's failures, his failure to recognize that no crime happened in the Duke rape hoax, that a crime did happen when Shan Carter chased down and shot to death an unarmed fleeing man and killed an innocent child in the process, that crystal did murder Reginald Daye, that he alleges that a crime happened is not enough.

Anonymous said...

more nonsense from harr:

"The question for you is: Do you believe that any district attorney has the right to ignore a complaint about a crime made by one of its citizens... and if so, why? Try and provide me with some enlightenment."

You seem to believe that you have the right to declare someone guilty of a crime and have that individual convicted and incarcerated. That you do so believe is more evicence that you are a delusional, ignorant megalomaniac, nothing more.

Anonymous said...

more nonsense from harr:

"Not only a minimally trained/minimal experienced medical school graduate, but a high school graduate would be able to recognize discrepancies between the Nichols autopsy report and Daye's hospital records. It doesn't take a medical expert... something which I never professed to be."

When you are rendering opinions such as, D. Nichols' autopsy reporr is fraudulent and saying your training as a physician is why you became aware that the autopsy report was fraudulent, you are trying to render an expert medical opinion. When you claim there was no possibility of a complication following the Surgery on Reginald Daye, which is what you say each and every time you say that the prognosis for Reginald Daye was a complete recovery, you are rendering an expert medical opinion.

You are also documenting you are not capable of rendering an expert medical opinion. You are just a delusional, ignorant megalomaniac.

Anonymous said...

more for harrr:

Did you or did you not apply for residency training? Your statement suggests you did not. That means, de facto, you were never accepted into residency training.

When one applied for residency training back then, the early 70's, one had to have recommendations from one's attendings and senior residents to support the application. Without recommendations, an applicant could not expect acceptance into residency training.

So, did you not apply for residency training because no one would recommend you for residency training? Answer either yes or no.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

The District Attorney has an obligation to refuse to act on complaints that are meritless, not grounded in fact or supported by evidence, and without basis in the law. Your complaint is all of that, plus you don't have standing to assert it.

This is a lesson Mike Nifong either never bothered to learn or willfully disregarded, and for which he paid a very high price.

Your case will be quickly and unequivocally dismissed and your sure to follow appeals will be denied. You can bet one of your Duke blue crying towels on it, if you have any left.

At some point you need to realize that Walt, a lawyer and others who post here aren't trying to trick you. They are actually giving you good information and sound advice, which you stubbornly refuse to consider, to your detriment. The courts will grant you quite a bit of leeway due to your circumstances, but eventually they will grow impatient with your antics and they will come down on you hard. Maybe not this case or the next, but sooner or later you will have to pay a price for your tomfoolery and your inability to process and deal with facts and information that you do not like. I don't think anyone who posts here is rooting for that to happen to you, but it is what is coming if you don't straighten yourself up and get a grip on your situation.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

JSwift said...

Sidney,

I am repeating my April 19 comment from an earlier thread. You did not respond to it because you were busy on your lawsuits. Nevertheless, I am trying to point out weaknesses in your argument. You fail to persuade others because your arguments are incomplete and ineffective, not because everyone in the world is conspiring against Mangum.


"Thank you for your April 9 5:37 PM response to my April 5 1:20 PM and April 8 2:45 AM comments. You did not provide sufficient edification as you ignore the specific questions I raised.

Your analysis of an esophageal intubation adds nothing. As I indicated on April 8 (“No one is trying to suggest Daye's brain death was not the result of the esophageal intubation.”), no one disagrees that the initial intubation was esophageal and that it resulted in Daye’s brain death.

Your legal conclusion is not credible.

You conclude that, because the effects of an esophageal intubation can be fatal, the intubation is automatically an intervening cause. Walt and A Lawyer provided case law that reaches a different legal conclusion. Stella, Vann, Holmes, Meier, Petersen, Nichols and Roberts apparently agree with this legal analysis. You criticize Roberts for her “misguided legal lines” and “nonsensical reasoning,” but provide no case law or anything else to support your legal conclusion.

Similarly, your medical conclusion is not credible.

You conclude that “the intubation was not related to the stab wound or to the surgical repair” and “at least in my mind, the cause of Daye's extreme agitation was delirium tremens and not an infection.” You provide no evidence to support this conclusion. I asked for “a detailed and specific analysis of the medical reports that support your medical conclusion.” You ignore this request.

My conclusion remains unchanged: “your analysis is incomplete. For that reason, the unsupported opinions of a friend of the defendant with no expertise are not sufficient to overcome the opinions of medical and legal experts.”

John D. Smith
New York, NY

April 19, 2016 at 7:26 AM"

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

more from harr:

"Of course I have standing. I am the aggrieved party and the district attorney is derelict in her duty by ignoring a citizen allegation of criminality. She has a duty to citizens to give reasonable attention to complaints and investigate meritorious ones. She can't merely ignore certain citizens and their complaints. As a result of her inaction, I have been injured due to loss of unencumbered interaction with a friend."

harr calle himself a crusader for justice. What harr actially espouses is that he is a law unto himself, that what he thinks is justice trumps everything else, and his will be done.

Another of describing that is that is lynch mob justice.

Anonymous said...

Harr opines that a prosecutor has non-discretionary duties: the district attorney is derelict in her duty by ignoring a citizen allegation of criminality. She has a duty to citizens to give reasonable attention to complaints and investigate meritorious ones. She can't merely ignore certain citizens and their complaints.

In the same way, Sidney, I trust that you agree that Nifong was derelict when he failed to investigate whether:

1. Mangum filed a false police report when she alleged she had been gang raped by perpetrators who ejaculated and did not use condoms;
2. Gottlieb obstructed justice when he filed a false police report, contradicted by contemporaneous reports;
3. Gottlieb and Nifong obstructed justice when they designed and administered a fatally flawed defendant selection process;
4. Meehan and Nifong obstructed justice when they agreed to omit the discovery of unmatched male DNA from the DNA report.

The Great Kilgo said...

kenhyderal: Are you just going to sit there with your thumb up your butt and watch the buffoon Harr file his lawsuits? If you want the information you are looking for, you need to contact me-- my e-mail address has not changed.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, why is your lawsuit against the Wake County DA, Lorrin Freeman, when Magnum was tried in Durham County? Would you not file the lawsuit against Roger Echols the current DA of Durham County?

In your relief sought, items 1-4 are for Magnum. And items 5-8 are directed to you. Are you saying that since you live in Wake County you want the Wake County DA to take action? Seems bizarre. In other words, does the Wake County DA have jurisdiction on items 1-4 that were tried in Durham County? And finally on items 5-8, you seem to want some kind of monetary compensation. Why should my taxes pay for your court costs/compensation?

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 9:29 (who I suspect is the meglomaniacal Dr. Anonymous)
said: "harr (sic) is a petty little ma(sic) who tries to hide from his inadequacty (sic)"...........................You, are a cowardly racist with delusions of grandeur who wrongly believes you are superior to Dr. Harr. Why don't you tell us who you are so we can confirm your greatness.

Anonymous said...

kenny hissy fit said:

"Anonymous @ 9:29 (who I suspect is the meglomaniacal Dr. Anonymous)
said: "harr (sic) is a petty little ma(sic) who tries to hide from his inadequacty (sic)"

"You, are a cowardly racist with delusions of grandeur who wrongly believes you are superior to Dr. Harr."

Use all the epithets you want-i.e. throw more popcorn at me from 500 yards and think you are terrifying. It is a matter of real world fact that I am superior to harr the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training, who never achieved board certification, and who spent most of his post medical school career filing and losing frivolous lawsuits.

The obvious racists on this blog are you and harr, wh believe innocent Caucasan men should be summarily convicted and incarcerated because they were falsely accused by a black woman of raping her.

Why don't you tell us who you are so we can confirm your greatness.

kenhyderal said...

JSwift AKA John D Smith said: "You conclude that “the intubation was not related to the stab wound or to the surgical repair” and “at least in my mind, the cause of Daye's extreme agitation was delirium tremens and not an infection.” You provide no evidence to support this conclusion. I asked for “a detailed and specific analysis of the medical reports that support your medical conclusion.” .........................Keep in mind Delirium Tremens was the presumptive diagnosis that sent Daye to the Critical Care Unit where a medical error rendered him brain dead. No records or no follow up actions support the differential diagnosis of a post operative infection.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. Anonymous said: "Why don't you tell us who you are so we can confirm your greatness"......................... You know who I am. Unlike you I make no claim to superiority over anyone.

Anonymous said...

Blogger kenhyderal said...
"Unlike you I make no claim to superiority over anyone."


You're just recognizing the obvious.

Anonymous said...

kanny hissy fit said:

'

JSwift AKA John D Smith said: "You conclude that “the intubation was not related to the stab wound or to the surgical repair” and “at least in my mind, the cause of Daye's extreme agitation was delirium tremens and not an infection.” You provide no evidence to support this conclusion. I asked for “a detailed and specific analysis of the medical reports that support your medical conclusion.” .........................Keep in mind Delirium Tremens was the presumptive diagnosis that sent Daye to the Critical Care Unit where a medical error rendered him brain dead. No records or no follow up actions support the differential diagnosis of a post operative infection."

kenny hissy fit documents again how abysmally ignorant he is about matters medical. No wonder, as he considers harr the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never aepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty board certification to be a distinguished former physician.

The only thing which distinguished harr as a physician is his total lack of competence. Very few physicians have sunk to the depths of incompetence as harr.

kenhyderal said...

What distinguishes Dr. Harr as a Physician is his compassion and his advocacy for the downtrodden and the marginalized. In the broadest sense he is a great healer. I'd chose him as my Doctor, anytime, over the, contemptuous, race obsessed, self-aggrandizing, semi-literate Dr. Anonymous

Anonymous said...


Kenny the troll,

Sid isn't licensed to practice medicine, so you probably shouldn't choose him as your doctor.

You should pick a doctor based on his education, training, skills and accomplishments in the field of medicine and not his skills as an advocate. However, if you were to rate doctors based on their advocacy skills, Sid would rank near the bottom.

Even you have to admit that Sid has been an utter failure as an advocate. In fact, he is the exact opposite of an advocate. His tactics and methods are such that he alienates people and turns them against him and the cause he is advocating. Indeed, I challenge you to list one positive outcome Sid has achieved as a result of his so-called advocacy.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

from kennt hissy fit:

"What distinguishes Dr. Harr as a Physician is his compassion and his advocacy for the downtrodden and the marginalized."

Wanting to convict innocent men of a crime which never happened, trying yo get murderers passes for their crimes, that is hardly compassion for the downtrodden. Calling the murder of Demetrius Green an unfortunate accident is hardly compassion for the downtrodden.

"In the broadest sense he is a great healer."

His record as a doctor, or lack thereof, says he has rarely, if ever, healed anyone.

"I'd chose him as my Doctor, anytime, over the, contemptuous, race obsessed, self-aggrandizing, semi-literate Dr. Anonymous".

You would be signing your own death warrant.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"I'd chose him as my Doctor, anytime, over the, contemptuous, race obsessed, self-aggrandizing, semi-literate Dr. Anonymous".

That is like Adolf Hitler saying, I'd go to Julius Streicher for advice about the Jews.

The Great Kilgo said...

kenhyderal: I am disappointed in you. You prefer to masterdebate with Ubes rather than ask me for the information.

Walt said...

Sid, your case against Lorrin Freeman and "Wake County Government", whatever that is, will fail. You should be aware of State ex rel Jacobs v. Sherard, 36 N.C.App 60, ___ S.E2d ___, (1978). I know you claim to have no access to a law library and thus cannot look things up, however, that does not mean the law does not apply to you. It does. And because of the holding in State ex rel. Jacobs, your latest lawsuit will fail like your previous ones.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

The Grievance Commission of the North Carolina State Bar used all of the creative juices it could muster to come up with an excuse for disbarring former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. They are so elaborate and nonsensical that not even Nifong bashers can make sense of them. The problem stems from the fact that no one can explain why Mike Nifong was disbarred… the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933. He certainly did not withhold discovery from defense attorneys of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. He had his staff deliver more than a thousand pages of discovery in three sets to attorneys for the defendants within 24 hours of the defense’s motion. What the media doesn’t want the public to know is that defense attorneys did not reciprocate when prosecutors sought discovery held by defense.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous May 1, 2016 at 5:10 AM

You are probably harr posting anonymously. This garbage is the same Garbage harr put out years ago.

nifong was obligated t turn over a report of what DNA Security found as soon as he got that report. He did not. He concealed it and lied to the court about it.

So far as the thousands of pages of evidence, nifong did not willingly turn them over, which he was obligated to do so. The court ordered him to do so after the Defense made a motion to the court.

The case against nifong is clear. He prosecuted without probable cause. He made public, inflammatory guilt presuming statements about the case. He fabricated evidence. He concealed exculpatory evidence from the defense and lied about it to the court.

If you are not harr postin anonymously, you are as stupid and biased as harr, which is nothing but an occasion for shame.

Beverly Boykin said...

Mike Nifong was disbarred because his attackers viewed him as breaking one of the "codes of the south" - actually it is a "code of racism maintained". He dared to charge white males with a charge of crimes against a Black Person - particularly sexual violations against a Black woman. The code of the south is that any white man can have his way with a Black woman, and Black people in general have no rights that a White man is bound to respect - a supreme court justice - Roger B. Taney code of the south imprinted in perpetuity.

So Mike Nifong's hapless error was that he dared to be fair and view Black people and white people equally, believe this Black woman, and appear to be - in the southern racists' minds who went after him - derailing the future of white guys for a Black woman's complaint.
I pray that Mike gets justice and his license to practice law back. But for the time, Satan is the Prince of this world, so, that is why Mike Nifong is suffering for the time being.

JSwift said...

kenhyderal AKA Kenny AKA Kenneth D Edwards claimed: Keep in mind Delirium Tremens was the presumptive diagnosis that sent Daye to the Critical Care Unit where a medical error rendered him brain dead. No records or no follow up actions support the differential diagnosis of a post operative infection.

Since Sidney will not provide the complete analysis, I ask that you do so.

Please provide “a detailed and specific analysis of the medical reports that support your medical conclusion.” Once you have provided the evidence that supports your medical conclusion, please explain why this medical conclusion matters from a legal perspective. This will require that you provide case law to support your conclusion that the esophageal intubation was an intervening cause.

Otherwise, as with Sidney, my conclusion will remain unchanged: “your analysis is incomplete. For that reason, the unsupported opinions of a friend of the defendant with no expertise are not sufficient to overcome the opinions of medical and legal experts.”

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

Sid - Google has most cases you claim to not have access to.

Kenny, you and Sid are pathetic abusers - these latest games from Sid, designed only to convince Crystal he is trying to do something when, in fact, he isn't, are further proof - as is your support.

How sad and pathetic is your life that you have to keep manipulating and abusing Crystal for your sick satisfaction?

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 245 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 8 days since April 23rd, 47 days since the Ides of March and 3,242 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

kenhyderal said...

@ The Fake Great Kilgo: e-mail me, then. If you have lost my e-mail address, e-mail Dr. Harr and he will provide you with it.

Anonymous said...

Beverly Boykin said...

"Mike Nifong was disbarred because his attackers viewed him as breaking one of the "codes of the south" - actually it is a "code of racism maintained". He dared to charge white males with a charge of crimes against a Black Person - particularly sexual violations against a Black woman."

Wrong. nifong was disbarred because he wrongfully prosecuted innocent men who were wrongfully accused of raping a black woman, because he made public inflammatory guilt presuming statements, because he made public statements that retention of counsel and remaining silent were indications of guilt, because he concealed exculpatory evidence and then lied about it to the court.

"The code of the south is that any white man can have his way with a Black woman, and Black people in general have no rights that a White man is bound to respect - a supreme court justice - Roger B. Taney code of the south imprinted in perpetuity."

The code nifong followed was that his own personal welfare, winning election to a term as DA, thereby enhancing his retirement benefits, trumped the Constitution of the US, trumped the law, and trumped ethical behavior. And if innocent men had their lives ruined in the process, so what. That was the code which motivated nifong.

So Mike Nifong's hapless error was that he dared to be fair and view Black people and white people equally,"

nifong did not view white people and black people equally. If crystal had accused black men of raping her, nifong would not have taken such a personal interest in the case, would not have played it up in the media. Prosecuting black men for raping a black woman would not have endeared himself to the racist elements in the Black Durham electorate.

"[to] believe this Black woman, and appear to be - in the southern racists' minds who went after him - derailing the future of white guys for a Black woman's complaint."

So you are saying it was irrelevant that this woman's complaint was totally false, totally contrived, that those she accused should have been presumed guilty and summarily convicted-right?

"I pray that Mike gets justice and his license to practice law back."

Justice for nifong would have been a felony conviction, a six figure fine and a triple digit prison sentence-that is what you are praying for, right?

"But for the time, Satan is the Prince of this world, so,"

nifong's wrongful prosecution of three innocent men is proof of that.

"that is why Mike Nifong is suffering for the time being."

Wrong again. nifong is paying a penalty for being one of the corrupt prosecutors in US and NC history. As I said earlier, if he had received justice he would have been suffering more.

Anonymous said...

Either harr or kenny hissy fit or both posting anonymously to create the illusion they have support.

Anonymous said...

When will we get another anonymous harr and/or hissy fit post?

The Great Kilgo said...

Ubes just can't help himself when he sees a post challenging the liestoppercrank mantra


SPIN UBES SPIN

QUACK QUACK QUACK

SPIN UBES SPIN

Anonymous said...

Looks like we've gotten some more harr and/or hissy fit anonymous postings.

Fake Kenhyderal said...

"...Mike Nifong is suffering for the time being."

No, Nifong and his wife are enjoying a very comfortable $9500+/month "retirement" with his 2 houses (1 worth only $1/4 million) and his $1000/month food budget.

We should all be suffering like Mike Nifong.

Anonymous said...

Whether Kenny and Sid have support in their alleged efforts to get Crystal a new trial isn't the issue. She's had attorneys advocating for her as well - the problem is that Harr/Kenny are not really trying to help her.

Sid still refuses to listen on Felony Murder - which immediately disqualifies every other legal analysis he may want to provide, because it's been explained to him, in clear terms, and he refuses to listen. Sid doesn't believe he can ever be wrong, and that's his problem. He refuses to listen and learn like an effective advocate, and anyone who tries to tell Crystal differently is part of the conspiracy and out to betray her.

It's sad, but it's classic abuse/manipulation. Sid is her only hope - and he isolates her from everyone else. It's too bad she doesn't see it, but she never has - the cycle of abuse continues.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone think that Anonymous @ May 1, 2016 at 5:10 AM or Beverly Boykin might be nifong or cy or maybe both of them?

JSwift said...

Sid:

Since Abe is apparently busy today, I provide Sid's daily progress update below.

You have 244 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 9 days since April 23rd, 48 days since the Ides of March and 3,243 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Fake Kenhyderal said...

I'm pretty sure that the Anonymous @ May 1, 2016 at 5:10 AM comments are a copy/paste from one of Sid's old blog entries.

It sounds very much like one.

kenhyderal said...

Indeed, it is a cut and paste from 2011 but it was posted by the registered poster Beverly Boykin not by Dr. Harr. This re-post was not posted my her but by an anonymous poster purporting to be her. Most likely it's the work of the troll, who frequently does such things, calling himself Malek Williams and claiming he was a High School classmate of Crystal. Someone she has no knowledge of

Anonymous said...

Kenny,

I love the way you complain about a troll. Are you supposed to have an exclusive?

Anonymous said...

Kenny the Troll claims with no proof that Crystal has no knowledge of her classmate, Malek Williams. He provided no explanation of how he communicated with her from the desert in Dubai. When I visited with her in prison, she told me that she has no knowledge of Kenneth Edwards, a supposed close personal friend from Canada, whom she supposedly met during her Navy career.

Malek Williams
Hillside High School
Class of 1996

Anonymous said...

Time for more harr/hissy fit anonymous posts.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2;06:

Which are the hard/hissy fit anonymous posts?

kenhyderal said...

The Anonymous Poster, who signs his anonymous posts with the name Malek Williams is a liar and a mischief making troll. Because he is a Crystal hater many of the rest of you who frequently accuse me of trolling give this detestable and ill-intentioned person a pass.

Anonymous said...

The Pseudonymous Poster, who signs his pseudonymous posts with the name kenhyderal is a liar and a mischief making troll. Because he is a Crystal hater many of the rest of you who frequently accuse Malek of trolling give this detestable and ill-intentioned person a pass.

Anonymous said...

It has been suggested tha recent comments from Beverly Boykin and May 1, 2016 at 5:10 AM are cuts and pastes from earlier J4N blogs.

Isn't it curious that the only comments appearing now(other than comments fromhissy fit and harr) supporting the harr/hissy fit agenda are reposted J4N comments from years ago?

Who would be motivated to do that other than harr/hissy fit. See how desperate they are to create the illusion that people support the harr/hissy fit agenda.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 243 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 10 days since April 23rd, 49 days since the Ides of March and 3,244 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

A big thanks to John D. Smith, a/k/a JSwift, for filling in for me yesterday.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Walt said...

Malek Edwards wrote: "... When I visited with her [Crystal] in prison, she told me that she has no knowledge of Kenneth Edwards, a supposed close personal friend from Canada, whom she supposedly met during her Navy career."

The plot thickens.

Walt-in-Durham

kenhyderal said...

Walt, don't be so gullible or are you being disingenuous? B.T.W. that's Malek Williams not Edwards. This person says Crystal does not recognize his name because he changed his slave name to Malek Williams. Now neither Malek or Williams are West African names. The one being Germanic the other Arabic. This guy is nothing but a liar and a not too bright one at that.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Sidney,
So why don't you try to contact Lynch and Obama?


gui, mon ami, Happy Birthday!

As far as Lynch and Obama, it's difficult enough to get anyone on a state level to talk to me. If I wrote them, there's no guarantee that they will personally even know about my letters.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid:

You have 243 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 10 days since April 23rd, 49 days since the Ides of March and 3,244 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

A big thanks to John D. Smith, a/k/a JSwift, for filling in for me yesterday.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Hey, Abe.

I just love the cooperation with John D. That's great.

By the way, I've been extremely busy as a lot is about to break through for Crystal.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Whether Kenny and Sid have support in their alleged efforts to get Crystal a new trial isn't the issue. She's had attorneys advocating for her as well - the problem is that Harr/Kenny are not really trying to help her.

Sid still refuses to listen on Felony Murder - which immediately disqualifies every other legal analysis he may want to provide, because it's been explained to him, in clear terms, and he refuses to listen. Sid doesn't believe he can ever be wrong, and that's his problem. He refuses to listen and learn like an effective advocate, and anyone who tries to tell Crystal differently is part of the conspiracy and out to betray her.

It's sad, but it's classic abuse/manipulation. Sid is her only hope - and he isolates her from everyone else. It's too bad she doesn't see it, but she never has - the cycle of abuse continues.


Hah! I don't know where you come up with this stuff. Fact is that I am Crystal's only hope for freedom and exoneration... and it's only a short matter of time before those objectives are realized.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid, your case against Lorrin Freeman and "Wake County Government", whatever that is, will fail. You should be aware of State ex rel Jacobs v. Sherard, 36 N.C.App 60, ___ S.E2d ___, (1978). I know you claim to have no access to a law library and thus cannot look things up, however, that does not mean the law does not apply to you. It does. And because of the holding in State ex rel. Jacobs, your latest lawsuit will fail like your previous ones.

Walt-in-Durham


Hey, Walt.

Thanks for the reference, I'll give it a look.

Anonymous said...

Sid states: "By the way, I've been extremely busy as a lot is about to break through for Crystal."

What is the next deadline on which we should focus?

Anonymous said...

If you think this lawsuit will do anything to help Crystal you are more delusional than we've all been led you believe.

This lawsuit will be dismissed in short order.

Anonymous said...

harr said:

"guiowen said...
Sidney,
So why don't you try to contact Lynch and Obama?


gui, mon ami, Happy Birthday!

As far as Lynch and Obama, it's difficult enough to get anyone on a state level to talk to me. If I wrote them, there's no guarantee that they will personally even know about my letters."

How do you know the powers that be at Duke ever read your letter telling them you would be there. That you got into a conflict with a security guardis not proof that you were set up.

Anonymous said...

harr said:

"Hah! I don't know where you come up with this stuff. Fact is that I am Crystal's only hope for freedom and exoneration... and it's only a short matter of time before those objectives are realized."

Your have been spewing garbage like that for years. Crystal is no where near being exonerated or freed.

Your record of absolute zero effectiveness is not exactly any kind of beacon of hope for crystal.

Anonymous said...

Sid knows his efforts actually hurt Crystal - he alienates her from those actually trying to help her, and then he does ridiculous things that have zero chance to help.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 242 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 11 days since April 23rd, 50 days since the Ides of March and 3,245 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

guiowen said...

Sidney,
Thank you for being a friend and remembering my birthday.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 241 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 12 days since April 23rd, 51 days since the Ides of March and 3,246 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

There have been a lot of meaningful posts from harr since his post of May 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM

Anonymous said...



Perhaps Sid got some bad news on his latest lolsuit against Duke. When things don't turn out the way he imagined they would, it usually silences him for a while.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You have 240 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 13 days since April 23rd, 52 days since the Ides of March and 3,247 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Maybe harr and hissy fit have realized the wisdom of the following:

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt".

However, by this time there is no doubt about the stupidity of harr and hissy fit.

Walt said...

Well, Sid hasn't been fully forthcoming with his reporting on Harr III. On April 25, the District Court has ordered Sid to appear and show cause, if any there might be, "why he should not be found in violation of Rule 11(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and abused the judicial process and why appropriate sanctions should not be imposed for the same." Further, all defendants have been ordered not to file answers until the court has Sid's show cause hearing on June 16, 2016 at 10:00 AM. The full court order has some interesting language such as: "repeated and vexatious pleadings,...", and my personal favorite: "... full of irrelevant and scurrilous contentions with no discussion of the legal rules applicable to a res judicata decision."

I so look forward to Sid's explanation of his latest vexatious pleading. More irrelevant and scurrilous contentions, I suspect.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Sid finally gets his day in court.

A Lawyer said...

On April 25, the District Court has ordered Sid to appear and show cause, if any there might be, "why he should not be found in violation of Rule 11(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and abused the judicial process and why appropriate sanctions should not be imposed for the same."

Walt, it's not like you and I didn't warn him.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I never thought the court would have the guts to do anything against Sid. He should be fined big time, and hopefully, this will shut him down. He has abused the court system for to long.

Anonymous said...


Sid is about to get smacked across the knuckles by the ruler of Justice.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Walt, why wait for Sid's explanation:

Duke conspiracy - just another example of people not showing Nifongian Courage to stand up to the Powers That Be.

Anonymous said...

Walt - Any chance you can post that Court Order on your blog?

Anonymous said...


It's fitting that Sid's hearing for sanctions is scheduled on the anniversary of Mike Nifong's disbarment.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Walt said...

Anonymous at 8:25 wrote: "Walt - Any chance you can post that Court Order on your blog?"

As requested, the order and Sid's frivolous motion to recuse are posted on my blog at http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2016/05/sanctions-against-sid-harr.html

A lawyer wrote: "Walt, it's not like you and I didn't warn him."

Indeed. Yes indeed.

Abe Froman wrote: "It's fitting that Sid's hearing for sanctions is scheduled on the anniversary of Mike Nifong's disbarment."

:-) I think someone in the master scheduler's office has a sense of history.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Looks like their plan is a gatekeeper order so he can't keep filing stuff. I imagine the lawyers in the Eastern District (where he filed his lawsuit against Wake County and Lorrin Freeman) will do the same.

Anonymous said...

Sid has completely lost his mind. This won't end well for him. He will be lucky if all they do is a gatekeeper order.

Kenny - you still think Sid is Crystal's best hope? I still think he's an abuser, but now I'm also convinced he's completely insane and delusional.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Sidney,
Thank you for being a friend and remembering my birthday.


gui, mon ami, I am likewise grateful for your friendship. If I ever get to the west coast near you, I will drop by for a visit.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...


Perhaps Sid got some bad news on his latest lolsuit against Duke. When things don't turn out the way he imagined they would, it usually silences him for a while.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Abe, have you heard the saying "He who laughs first, laughs least"...?

Anyway, you misinterpret my silence. Usually I am silent on the comment page when I am busy doing other things. I have to prioritize my time... for example, first would be to keep my lawsuit against Duke viable, second would be work to free - exonerate - compensate Mangum. Third would be to enlighten viewers of my blog site with sharlogs and megablogs. Fourth, is interacting with comments.

So when I am not actively responding to comments, you can be sure that I'm either extremely busy fighting for justice, or have traveled out of town to recreate.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Wow, I never thought the court would have the guts to do anything against Sid. He should be fined big time, and hopefully, this will shut him down. He has abused the court system for to long.


Hah! Are you kidding about me abusing the court system? How? Back up your allegations with some facts if you can.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Anonymous at 8:25 wrote: "Walt - Any chance you can post that Court Order on your blog?"

As requested, the order and Sid's frivolous motion to recuse are posted on my blog at http://walt-in-durham.blogspot.com/2016/05/sanctions-against-sid-harr.html

A lawyer wrote: "Walt, it's not like you and I didn't warn him."

Indeed. Yes indeed.

Abe Froman wrote: "It's fitting that Sid's hearing for sanctions is scheduled on the anniversary of Mike Nifong's disbarment."

:-) I think someone in the master scheduler's office has a sense of history.

Walt-in-Durham


Hey, Walt.

I commend you for being on top of things. I just filed my motions a little more than twelve hours ago.

What is your opinion on the main issue... Do you feel that Webster and Eagles, who both ruled against me in Harr-II, should be assigned to Harr-III? Do you think they can be impartial? I don't think so.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Hey Walt....What is your opinion on the main issue...[?]"

Your lawsuit is frivolous, just as it was the first time and the second. Only this time, you are in violation of the sanction in Harr II, which makes this filing vexatious.

"Do you feel that Webster and Eagles, who both ruled against me in Harr-II, should be assigned to Harr-III?"

Since you raised no new issues in Harr III, I can see no reason not to assign Judge Eagles. Worse, you filed Harr III well beyond the statute of limitations, and in violation of the doctrine of res judicata. Whatever happens to you, you brought on yourself.

"Do you think they can be impartial?"

They were the last time.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...


Sid:

Just because a judge rules against a party in a case doesn't mean they are biased or partial against that party, and it doesn't mean they can never hear another case involving that party again.

You lost your first two lolsuits because you didn't have a case against Duke. The decisions were based on the law and did not reflect any bias or lack of impartiality against you. You got sanctioned because of your own wrongful conduct in bringing the exact same case a second time and indicating that you would continue to do so, in spite of the clear prohibition against relitigating the same case against the same parties after it has been disposed of on the merits. The sanctions placed on you were as mild and as least restrictive as they could be, but like a fool you intentionally violated them yet again. You will pay a price for that brazen act of numbskullery.

There is an enormous difference between a judge doing his or her job and deciding cases, and a judge being biased against a party. You do not come anywhere close to bridging that chasm in your motion, nor do you give any valid legal reason why you should be able to refile your case against Duke for a third time.

No sausage for you. You lose your case and your motion to recuse. Prepare yourself for far more severe sanctions.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

A Lawyer said...

Dr. Harr,

To force the recusal of a judge, you have to show "extrajudicial bias"-- meaning the judge is prejudiced against you based on something that happened outside of court. If the judge is your next-door neighbor and you have been calling the cops to complain about him stealing your newspaper from your driveway in the mornings, his impartiality could reasonably be questioned. If you are suing Duke and Duke's lawyer is the judge's son, ditto.

But a judge is not disqualified based on opinions he formed while acting as a judge, based on the proceedings in his court-- otherwise, you would have to switch judges in every case every week, because a judge might have formed a bad opinion of one of the parties based on the evidence that was heard that week.

Here, all you are saying is that the judges didn't like your case last time. (They had no choice, by the way, because Harr I had already been the the Court of Appeals.) But whatever reason they had for not liking your case was stuff they saw and heard in court. So they are not disqualified from hearing Harr III just because they decided Harr II.

Anonymous said...

Fourteen years seems like a very lenient sentence for murder but I guess Daye's life didn't matter.I wonder if Crystal will kill again when she gets out? Does anyone know when her earliest release date is?

guiowen said...

Sidney,
Why do you insist on this? You'll be sent to bed without supper once again.

Anonymous said...

harr sais:

"
Hah! Are you kidding about me abusing the court system? How? Back up your allegations with some facts if you can."

Huh?

You refile a frivolous suit that has been dismissed twice, and you file it years after the statute of limitations has expired.

It is res ipsa loquitur that you abuee the system.

Anonymous said...

Corrections:

harr said:

"Hah! Are you kidding about me abusing the court system? How? Back up your allegations with some facts if you can."

Huh?

You refile a frivolous suit that has been dismissed twice, and you file it years after the statute of limitations has expired.

It is res ipsa loquitur that you abuese the system.

Nifong Supporter said...


HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!

AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

Since Walt was so "Johnny-on-the-spot," with respect to posting the Motions I filed yesterday, I will place a link to the exhibits I filed along with the brief. LINK to exhibits

(Hope this link works... if not, I'll post a link on the blog site page later.)

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Sidney,
Why do you insist on this? You'll be sent to bed without supper once again.


gui, mon ami, many fighters for freedom and justice have gone to be on an empty stomach. What can I say... it is unfortunately something that comes with the territory.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Dr. Harr,

To force the recusal of a judge, you have to show "extrajudicial bias"-- meaning the judge is prejudiced against you based on something that happened outside of court. If the judge is your next-door neighbor and you have been calling the cops to complain about him stealing your newspaper from your driveway in the mornings, his impartiality could reasonably be questioned. If you are suing Duke and Duke's lawyer is the judge's son, ditto.

But a judge is not disqualified based on opinions he formed while acting as a judge, based on the proceedings in his court-- otherwise, you would have to switch judges in every case every week, because a judge might have formed a bad opinion of one of the parties based on the evidence that was heard that week.

Here, all you are saying is that the judges didn't like your case last time. (They had no choice, by the way, because Harr I had already been the the Court of Appeals.) But whatever reason they had for not liking your case was stuff they saw and heard in court. So they are not disqualified from hearing Harr III just because they decided Harr II.


Hey, A Lawyer.

If I am not mistaken, I believe that the legal statutes and principles state that if there is the mere "appearance of partiality," then the judge should recuse him/herself. I believe there are grounds to support that in this instance. It is rare for a judge to rule contrary to one of their prior rulings on the same case... maybe I should say it is totally unheard of.

If not, since you have access to a law library, could you give me a citation?

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 40 days.

You have 239 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 14 days since April 23rd, 53 days since the Ides of March and 3,248 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid:

Just because a judge rules against a party in a case doesn't mean they are biased or partial against that party, and it doesn't mean they can never hear another case involving that party again.

You lost your first two lolsuits because you didn't have a case against Duke. The decisions were based on the law and did not reflect any bias or lack of impartiality against you. You got sanctioned because of your own wrongful conduct in bringing the exact same case a second time and indicating that you would continue to do so, in spite of the clear prohibition against relitigating the same case against the same parties after it has been disposed of on the merits. The sanctions placed on you were as mild and as least restrictive as they could be, but like a fool you intentionally violated them yet again. You will pay a price for that brazen act of numbskullery.

There is an enormous difference between a judge doing his or her job and deciding cases, and a judge being biased against a party. You do not come anywhere close to bridging that chasm in your motion, nor do you give any valid legal reason why you should be able to refile your case against Duke for a third time.

No sausage for you. You lose your case and your motion to recuse. Prepare yourself for far more severe sanctions.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Hey, Abe.

First of all, res judicata is not applicable in Harr-II because the judgment reached in Harr-I was not the result of a "full and fair" hearing. It was decided based on a Motion to Dismiss, and Judge Webster failed to cite any case law wherein a res judicata was imposed and held to be legitimate in a case based on a decision due to a Motion to Dismiss. Maybe you, or someone in Chicago with access to a law library can cite a case where res judicata was applied to a case decided by a Motion to Dismiss.

The only cases that Webster cited were decided on a consent judgment and a summary judgment (based on the plaintiff's failure to respond to a defense Motion to Dismiss in a timely manner)... neither of which transpired in my case. Good luck in finding a relevant citation.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

A Judge making a decision in favor of one party and against the other based on the law and the facts of the case does not create an "appearance of partiality." That is what Judges do.

It is rare for any judge to rule contrary to prior rulings in the same case. Any judge who hears lolsuit III has to dismiss it based on the rulings in the first two lolsuits. They don't have a choice. It's called res judicata. Google it.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

The Great Kilgo said...

So kenhyderal, Malek's post explains why I haven't heard from you.

Nifong Supporter said...


HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP, AGAIN!

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

Time permitting, I will post a questionnaire for all viewers to participate in with regards to the legal issues stemming from my Duke case and suit against D.A. Freeman.

I will then post the results of the poll after a reasonable time by which to participate. Note, it will be necessary to list an active email address in order for responses to count in the survey.

Right now, however, I am too engaged in other busy work to produce the questionnaires.

As you were.

Anonymous said...

Hey Sid, have you made your travel plans? I hear that Greensboro is a nice place to visit in June.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hey Sid, have you made your travel plans? I hear that Greensboro is a nice place to visit in June.


Hah! .. a comedian! So funny I almost forgot to laugh.

The train trip to Greensboro is a quite pleasant excursion. We'll have to wait and see if fate deems it necessary.

Ciao for now.

Anonymous said...


Blogger Nifong Supporter said...

"Right now, however, I am too engaged in other busy work to produce the questionnaires."



That's an interesting choice of words, Sid. Here is the definition of "busy work" from an on-line dictionary: "Work that keeps a person busy but has little value in itself."


Anonymous said...

harr said:

æHEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!

AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

Since Walt was so "Johnny-on-the-spot," with respect to posting the Motions I filed yesterday, I will place a link to the exhibits I filed along with the brief. LINK to exhibits

(Hope this link works... if not, I'll post a link on the blog site page later.)"

Another compendium of harr's megalomaniacal delusions.

Anonymous said...

harrsaid:

"
guiowen said...
Sidney,
Why do you insist on this? You'll be sent to bed without supper once again.


gui, mon ami, many fighters for freedom and justice have gone to be on an empty stomach. What can I say... it is unfortunately something that comes with the territory."

Another harrian megalomaniacal delusion. harr is no fighter for freedom or justice.

Anonymous said...

harr said:

"Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Dr. Harr,

To force the recusal of a judge, you have to show "extrajudicial bias"-- meaning the judge is prejudiced against you based on something that happened outside of court. If the judge is your next-door neighbor and you have been calling the cops to complain about him stealing your newspaper from your driveway in the mornings, his impartiality could reasonably be questioned. If you are suing Duke and Duke's lawyer is the judge's son, ditto.

But a judge is not disqualified based on opinions he formed while acting as a judge, based on the proceedings in his court-- otherwise, you would have to switch judges in every case every week, because a judge might have formed a bad opinion of one of the parties based on the evidence that was heard that week.

Here, all you are saying is that the judges didn't like your case last time. (They had no choice, by the way, because Harr I had already been the the Court of Appeals.) But whatever reason they had for not liking your case was stuff they saw and heard in court. So they are not disqualified from hearing Harr III just because they decided Harr II.


Hey, A Lawyer.

If I am not mistaken, I believe that the legal statutes and principles state that if there is the mere "appearance of partiality," then the judge should recuse him/herself. I believe there are grounds to support that in this instance. It is rare for a judge to rule contrary to one of their prior rulings on the same case... maybe I should say it is totally unheard of.

If not, since you have access to a law library, could you give me a citation?"

You were grossly mistaken on your evaluation of nifong, that he was a fair, honest minister of justice(I remind you he prosecuted three innocent men for a crime which never happened so he could impress the racist elements of the Durham black electorate, win an election, and pad his retirement-and no you have not demonstrated that pandering to the black electorate almost cost him the election). So whywould any one believa you know anything about the justice system or how it functions.

Anonymous said...

harr said:

"First of all, res judicata is not applicable in Harr-II because the judgment reached in Harr-I was not the result of a "full and fair" hearing. It was decided based on a Motion to Dismiss, and Judge Webster failed to cite any case law wherein a res judicata was imposed and held to be legitimate in a case based on a decision due to a Motion to Dismiss. Maybe you, or someone in Chicago with access to a law library can cite a case where res judicata was applied to a case decided by a Motion to Dismiss."

harr again assumes that because he filed a lawsuit he was entitled to have it tried in court. It does not work thatway.

"The only cases that Webster cited were decided on a consent judgment and a summary judgment (based on the plaintiff's failure to respond to a defense Motion to Dismiss in a timely manner)... neither of which transpired in my case. Good luck in finding a relevant citation"

How about you first prove you knw anything about the legal syatem. So far you have displayed only a delusionalmegalomaniacal attitude, that you are above the law, that you,nolegal training, no legal experience harr,determines what the law is.

Anonymous said...


Sid said:

"First of all, res judicata is not applicable in Harr-II because the judgment reached in Harr-I was not the result of a "full and fair" hearing. It was decided based on a Motion to Dismiss, and Judge Webster failed to cite any case law wherein a res judicata was imposed and held to be legitimate in a case based on a decision due to a Motion to Dismiss. Maybe you, or someone in Chicago with access to a law library can cite a case where res judicata was applied to a case decided by a Motion to Dismiss."

You're kidding, right? You obviously haven't done a lick of legal research and you are about to pay for your willful ignorance.

You had your day in court on Harr I. You lost. Getting your day in court doesn't mean you automatically get to have a trial. Trials are only held when there are genuine issues of fact or law to be decided. All the issues in your case were decided on the motion to dismiss. Harr I didn't go to trial because there was nothing left to try after the motion to dismiss was decided.

You appealed Harr I and lost. Then you filed Harr II and lost on res judicata and were sanctioned for attempting to relitigate the same case. You appealed that decision and lost. Now you are trying to relitigate it yet again.

I am not going to do your legal research for you because you will only disregard it. The answer is out there if you want it. It is black letter law available to anyone with a computer or access to a library. You have both.

Here is what is going to happen: Harr III is going to be dismissed and you are going to be punished for violating Rule 11 and the sanctions imposed in Harr II by filing a frivolous and vexatious lolsuit that is barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations. At that point you can either accept the reality of the world in which we live or go ahead and triple down on stupid and file Harr IV and face further punishment.

If I were you, I'd stock up on some more crying towels. You are going to need them.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Walt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Walt said...

Sid wrote: "If I am not mistaken, I believe that the legal statutes and principles state that if there is the mere "appearance of partiality," then the judge should recuse him/herself."

He who asserts, must prove. But, I'll give you a hand. Canon 3(C) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (available online, so you don't need a law library) provides the circumstances when recusal is required. You have alleged none of those circumstances. Ruling against you, correctly, is not a reason to recuse.

"I believe there are grounds to support that in this instance. It is rare for a judge to rule contrary to one of their prior rulings on the same case..."

You never were a good advocate, but you just admitted you refiled the same case. That violates the doctrine of res judicata. You just lost your own case.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Sid it's not fate that will deem your train trip to Greensboro necessary it's the law. Your analysis here is beyond pathetic. I send to think you were an abuser, and knew this was a joke. Now I think you are seriously mentally ill. It's just sad.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid wrote: "If I am not mistaken, I believe that the legal statutes and principles state that if there is the mere "appearance of partiality," then the judge should recuse him/herself."

He who asserts, must prove. But, I'll give you a hand. Canon 3(C) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (available online, so you don't need a law library) provides the circumstances when recusal is required. You have alleged none of those circumstances. Ruling against you, correctly, is not a reason to recuse.

"I believe there are grounds to support that in this instance. It is rare for a judge to rule contrary to one of their prior rulings on the same case..."

You never were a good advocate, but you just admitted you refiled the same case. That violates the doctrine of res judicata. You just lost your own case.

Walt-in-Durham


Hey, Walt.

I respectfully disagree with your analysis. First and foremost, res judicata requires that an initial ruling be the result of a "full and fair hearing." That is something that I did not receive from Judges Webster and Eagles.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Nifong Supporter said...

"Right now, however, I am too engaged in other busy work to produce the questionnaires."



That's an interesting choice of words, Sid. Here is the definition of "busy work" from an on-line dictionary: "Work that keeps a person busy but has little value in itself."

Anonymous said...

harr said:

"Hey, Walt.

I respectfully disagree with your analysis. First and foremost, res judicata requires that an initial ruling be the result of a "full and fair hearing." That is something that I did not receive from Judges Webster and Eagles."

Harr still presumes that because he filed a lawsuit he has a right to have his case go to trial. Sort of like those people who said crystal was entitled to have her day in court because she falsely accused the Lacrosse players of raping her.

Anonymous said...

more for harr:

It is like his belief that the Lacrosse players were guilty because he proclaimed they were. The judge should be presumed unfair because he proclaims it so.

harr repeatedly confirms he is a delusional megalomaniac.

Anonymous said...

Sidney said:

Hah! Are you kidding about me abusing the court system? How? Back up your allegations with some facts if you can.

Ok here is one:

"Abuse is the improper usage or treatment of an entity, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit."

In your lawsuit against the Wake County DA you ask for compensation for court costs and efforts in the filing. This is abuse plain and simple. If you had any degree of honor you would not have ask for money. I used to side with your efforts in some degree but once you ask for compensation, then I knew where your heart really was. In other words, would the Man of Nazareth ask for compensation?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
harr said:

"Hey, Walt.

I respectfully disagree with your analysis. First and foremost, res judicata requires that an initial ruling be the result of a "full and fair hearing." That is something that I did not receive from Judges Webster and Eagles."

Harr still presumes that because he filed a lawsuit he has a right to have his case go to trial. Sort of like those people who said crystal was entitled to have her day in court because she falsely accused the Lacrosse players of raping her.


Excuse me, but Crystal Mangum was never a party in the case against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants... the State of North Carolina was the party against the defendants until dismissed by the NC Attorney General.

In other words, Mangum never sought to have her day in court with regards to the criminal case against the Duke Lacrosse defendants.

Comprende, or is further elucidation required?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney said:

Hah! Are you kidding about me abusing the court system? How? Back up your allegations with some facts if you can.

Ok here is one:

"Abuse is the improper usage or treatment of an entity, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit."

In your lawsuit against the Wake County DA you ask for compensation for court costs and efforts in the filing. This is abuse plain and simple. If you had any degree of honor you would not have ask for money. I used to side with your efforts in some degree but once you ask for compensation, then I knew where your heart really was. In other words, would the Man of Nazareth ask for compensation?


Filing the complaint against the Wake County D.A. for dereliction of duty is not without cost... in fact, the filing fee is $400.00. That is why many poor people fail to file complaints... along with the fact that filing as a pauper is cumbersome and complicated to say the least. But, if the Court sees that my complaint is meritorious, I see no problem with seeking reimbursement for the filing fee... or whatever other awards the Court may deem reasonable. Keep in mind, that there is expenditure of time and effort in filing a lawsuit, and also keep in mind that no punitive damages were requested.

With all due respect, your grievance about my seeking compensation for the filing fee, I believe, is actually quite petty. The cost to taxpayers for the years of wrongful incarceration of Mangum should be of more concern to you. Am I right? (P.S., it's a rhetorical question.)

Anonymous said...

Heh. Lolsuits.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You will stand tall before the man in 39 days.

You have 238 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 15 days since April 23rd, 54 days since the Ides of March and 3,249 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

WHERE IS kenhyderal THE TROLL?

Anonymous said...

The courts have already deemed your complaint without merit - and those dismissals were upheld by the US Supreme Court. Your analysis is wrong and you are a sad, pathetic, mentally ill man. They will issue a gatekeeper order at a minimum, you will be lucky if they don't impose other sanctions. But Duke will never have to respond to your lawsuit, neither will Lorrin Freeman or Wake County Government (which isn't even a legal entity).

Anonymous said...

Oh - and the law is clear, pro se litigants are not entitled to compensation for their time and efforts in pursuing lawsuits. If you win, you can get costs (the filing fee) but none of the other compensation you are seeking.

Anonymous said...



harr said:
"Excuse me, but Crystal Mangum was never a party in the case against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants... the State of North Carolina was the party against the defendants until dismissed by the NC Attorney General."

Excuse me, but crystal was the complaining witness who, incidentally, in case you haven't noticed, falsely accused the Lacrosse players of rape. Without crystal's false accusation there would have been no Duke Rape Hoax(as crystal's allegations were false it was not the Duke rape case). She definitely was a party to the case.

"In other words, Mangum never sought to have her day in court with regards to the criminal case against the Duke Lacrosse defendants."

So why did you post comments from people who said crystal was entitled to her day in court?

"Comprende,"

I do.You obviously do not.

"or is further elucidation required?"

One who can not provide elucidation in the first place is incapable of providing further elucidation.

Anonymous said...

harr said:

"Filing the complaint against the Wake County D.A. for dereliction of duty is not without cost... in fact, the filing fee is $400.00. That is why many poor people fail to file complaints... along with the fact that filing as a pauper is cumbersome and complicated to say the least. But, if the Court sees that my complaint is meritorious, I see no problem with seeking reimbursement for the filing fee... or whatever other awards the Court may deem reasonable. Keep in mind, that there is expenditure of time and effort in filing a lawsuit, and also keep in mind that no punitive damages were requested."

Except tere was no dereliction of duty. You made unsubstantiated allegations of dereliction of duty.

"With all due respect, your grievance about my seeking compensation for the filing fee, I believe, is actually quite petty. The cost to taxpayers for the years of wrongful incarceration of Mangum should be of more concern to you. Am I right? (P.S., it's a rhetorical question.)"

Except there was no wrongful incarceration of crystal. She murdered Reginald Daye. That you are totally incapable of realizing that does not give you grounds for a lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

Revision:

"Filing the complaint against the Wake County D.A. for dereliction of duty is not without cost... in fact, the filing fee is $400.00. That is why many poor people fail to file complaints... along with the fact that filing as a pauper is cumbersome and complicated to say the least. But, if the Court sees that my complaint is meritorious, I see no problem with seeking reimbursement for the filing fee... or whatever other awards the Court may deem reasonable. Keep in mind, that there is expenditure of time and effort in filing a lawsuit, and also keep in mind that no punitive damages were requested."

Except there was no dereliction of duty, only your unsubstantiated allegations of dereliction of duty.

"With all due respect, your grievance about my seeking compensation for the filing fee, I believe, is actually quite petty. The cost to taxpayers for the years of wrongful incarceration of Mangum should be of more concern to you. Am I right? (P.S., it's a rhetorical question.)"

Except there was no wrongful incarceration of crystal. She murdered Reginald Daye. That you are totally incapable of realizing that does not give you grounds for a lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

Sidney says:

"With all due respect, your grievance about my seeking compensation for the filing fee, I believe, is actually quite petty. The cost to taxpayers for the years of wrongful incarceration of Mangum should be of more concern to you. Am I right? (P.S., it's a rhetorical question.)"

You have a great knack for re-direction. We were discussing abuse of the court system by you, not the cost to taxpayers for Mangum's incarceration. The two have nothing to do with each other. My comment was that you do not have the fortitude to cover the costs of the lawsuits you are filing. Meaning the expenditure of time and effort in filing a lawsuit is your choice. And now you feel that I as a taxpayer should be a part of that choice by giving you compensation.

Parasite : a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 38 days.

You have 237 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 16 days since April 23rd, 55 days since the Ides of March and 3,250 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Sid ...

Why should you get special treatment? Even if your lawsuit wasn't meritless, by your own admission it is now beyond the Statute of Limitations. Why shouldn't it be dismissed on that ground alone?

Why should an exception be made for you when it's not made for anyone else, including people who have been killed or injured by the wrongful acts of another.

You are just a greedy, mentally ill old man trying to shake down Duke, and are upset they won't simply pay you to go away.

But, beyond that - why should they ignore the Statute of Limitations for you?

Walt said...

Anonymous at 5:25 AM wrote: "Why should an exception be made for you when it's not made for anyone else...[?]"

Sid has always been a seeker of injustice.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Filing the complaint against the Wake County D.A. for dereliction of duty is not without cost..." But it is without merit. State ex rel Jacobs v. Sherard, 36 N.C.App 60, ___ S.E2d ___, (1978).

" in fact, the filing fee is $400.00. That is why many poor people fail to file complaints... along with the fact that filing as a pauper is cumbersome and complicated to say the least. "

Irrelevant. Which describes many of your arguments.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Anonymous at 11:02 AM wrote: "Except there was no wrongful incarceration of crystal."

Ding - Ding - Ding! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Kenny,

You've been awfully quiet. What do you have to say about the latest windmills Sid is tilting at? Should the Courts ignore the law and give him preferential treatment like he wants?

You think any of this will help Crystal?

C'mon man, your boy needs your support!

kenhyderal said...

@ Walt: What a distorted sense of justice you have. Achieving justice must be the goal. If the process fails to bring about that end, as happens so often in North Carolina, then this system truly lacks value and the people suffer.

kenhyderal said...

@ Anonymous: Crystal did not murder Reginald Daye. Duke did discriminate against Dr. Harr. Utilizing their non-solicitation policy as a justification to evict him was similar to the Durham County Prosecutor's tactic of utilizing Larceny in Chose of Action to pile on to Crystal. The latter failed and so should the former

Man in Black said...

O.o?

Anonymous said...

from kenny hissy fit:

"@ Anonymous: Crystal did not murder Reginald Daye."

Tes she did.

"Duke did discriminate against Dr. Harr.

No they did not.

"Utilizing their non-solicitation policy as a justification to evict him was similar to the Durham County Prosecutor's tactic of utilizing Larceny in Chose of Action to pile on to Crystal."

Larceny in close action, as as been pointed out so many times on this blog, was not used to "pile on Crystal".

"The latter failed and so should the former"

The only failures on this blog are harr and kenny hissy fit.

Anonymous said...

more from kenny hissy fit:

"@ Walt: What a distorted sense of justice you have."

So says kenny hissy fit, whose agenda is getting a convicterd murderess who has also been outed as a false accuser a pass for her crimes.

"Achieving justice must be the goal. If the process fails to bring about that end, as happens so often in North Carolina, then this system truly lacks value and the people suffer."

Justice was achieved when crystal was convicted.

The grssest occurrence of mis justice in the NC justice system was the prosecution the of innocent Caucasian men whom crystal falsely accused of rapng her.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it time for some more harr/hissy fit anonymous posts?

Anonymous said...



Blogger kenhyderal said...

"@ Anonymous: Crystal did not murder Reginald Daye. Duke did discriminate against Dr. Harr. Utilizing their non-solicitation policy as a justification to evict him was similar to the Durham County Prosecutor's tactic of utilizing Larceny in Chose of Action to pile on to Crystal. The latter failed and so should the former"

Both issues have already been decided.

Mangum was found guilty of murdering Mr. Daye. The verdict was supported by the law and the facts of the case and was upheld on appeal. Duke did not discriminate against Sid. Sid's lawsuit claiming they did was dismissed. The dismissal was upheld on appeal.

Justice mandates (a) that Mangum remain in prison and serve her sentence and (b) that Sid face punishment for engaging in frivolous and vexatious litigation.

Sid's repeated attempts to circumvent justice will fail miserably, as they have failed thus far in this case and in other cases he has been involved in throughout his adult life. If that frustrates you and Sid, or makes you angry, then good. It should not be easy or fun to subvert justice and attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the legal system. At least you are smart enough not to roll up your sleeves and actually engage in wrongdoing. Sid, on the other hand, has willfully engaged in unlawful behavior, which will result in escalating sanctions against him.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

It's Kenny...he's baaaaack.

kenhyderal said...

Man in Black said: "O.o?................................First enlighten thyself next apply commonsense and then "Do the right thing"

kenhyderal said...

Abe said: ":Both issues have already been decided"........................... Wrongly so and like segregation need to be corrected for the sake of justice.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 37 days.

You have 236 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 17 days since April 23rd, 56 days since the Ides of March and 3,251 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...


kenny said...

"Abe said: 'Both issues have already been decided'........................... Wrongly so and like segregation need to be corrected for the sake of justice."

No one has come remotely close to demonstrating that either issue (Mangum's guilt or that Duke did not discriminate against Sid) was wrongly decided. To the contrary, the facts, evidence, law and common sense show that both issues were properly decided. Simply claiming otherwise does not make it so.

The outcome of both cases is easy to predict. Justice mandates that Mangum remain in prison for the murder of Mr. Daye and that Sid be punished for engaging in frivolous and vexatious litigation. That is exactly what will happen. There are no grey areas. It is not a close call. There is no doubt, uncertainty, or serious disagreement among people familiar with the law and the facts of both cases. If you believed otherwise, you would do more than just troll this website.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

kenny said...

"Abe said: 'Both issues have already been decided'........................... Wrongly so and like segregation need to be corrected for the sake of justice."

No one has come remotely close to demonstrating that either issue (Mangum's guilt or that Duke did not discriminate against Sid) was wrongly decided. To the contrary, the facts, evidence, law and common sense show that both issues were properly decided. Simply claiming otherwise does not make it so.

The outcome of both cases is easy to predict. Justice mandates that Mangum remain in prison for the murder of Mr. Daye and that Sid be punished for engaging in frivolous and vexatious litigation. That is exactly what will happen. There are no grey areas. It is not a close call. There is no doubt, uncertainty, or serious disagreement among people familiar with the law and the facts of both cases. If you believed otherwise, you would do more than just troll this website.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Hey, Abe.

We agree on one thing... there are no gray areas in the two areas. Crystal is innocent... the stab wound she inflicted having nothing to do with Daye's death. It is only a matter of a short time before she is exonerated and freed. With regards to the lawsuits I have filed, they are on solid ground and I will prevail... unlike the lawsuits filed by McCrory, Phil Berger, and Tim Moore against the Department of Justice in defense of the discriminatory House Bill 2.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 37 days.

You have 236 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 17 days since April 23rd, 56 days since the Ides of March and 3,251 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Abe, it remains to be seen what happens. I filed several motions in my case which I think deserved to be ruled upon... foremost being that of the recusal. Surely, neither Judge Eagles nor Judge Webster can be impartial in my case.

Anonymous said...


Sid,

Nothing remains to be seen. The judge did not order you to show cause on June 16 and direct the defendants in Harr III to ignore your pleadings so she could tell you in person what a great job you are doing and enter summary judgment in your favor. You know that.

You have failed to demonstrate that either Judge Eagles or Judge Webster are not impartial. The mere fact they correctly ruled against you in your previous lolsuits isn't enough. Put another way, a coach isn't entitled to a new referee just because he doesn't like it that the current ref is following the rules and calling the fouls his team commits. Absolutely no one is going to be amused or impressed by your baseless recusal motion.

None of this is going to go well for you. I think you know that, too.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Sid - you claim your final lawsuit is on solid ground, but it's beyond the Statute of Limitations ... why shouldn't that apply to you?

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Abe, it remains to be seen what happens. I filed several motions in my case which I think deserved to be ruled upon... foremost being that of the recusal. Surely, neither Judge Eagles nor Judge Webster can be impartial in my case."

If by several, you mean one, then yes you have filed a motion for recusal. You failed to cite a reason under the law for your request. Again, you have filed a motion with no discussion of the legal rules applicable to the relief you seek. As far as impartiality goes, Judge Eagles and Magistrate Webster have been impartial. For your elucidation, impartial does not mean they rule for you. Just that they apply the law equally to all who come before them. That, they have done.

"Crystal is innocent..." No she is not.

" the stab wound she inflicted having nothing to do with Daye's death."

He who asserts, must prove. In this case you are down, by two. That is two experts have opined that the stab would had everything to do with Daye's death, no matter how many times you spout off to the contrary.

"It is only a matter of a short time before she is exonerated and freed."

Exonerated, nope that won't happen. Freed, February 2, 2026.

"With regards to the lawsuits I have filed, they are on solid ground and I will prevail..."

No you won't. Harr III will be dismissed because it is barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations. But, new sanctions will be handed down. Look for a gate keeper order. Your case in the Eastern District against Lorrin Freeman will be dismissed on a 12(b)(6) ruling because of the holding in State ex rel Jacobs v. Sherard, 36 N.C.App 60, ___ S.E2d ___, (1978), which has previously been provided to you.

Your lifetime record of legal futility will remain intact.

Walt-in-Durham

Inigo Montoya said...

Kenny says "...First enlighten thyself..."

ಠ_ಠ

kenhyderal said...

@ Inigo : Your approbation is not being solicited

Anonymous said...

I like how Sid claims he was wronged because he refused to provide an explanation for why he needed an extension to the Judge. Why should the Judge trust you? You have done nothing to show you should, or should not, be trusted - but just like all those you accuse in the Mangum case - he asked a question, you refused to answer, so he moved on.

The fact that Kenny is even pretending to support your crap shows that he really is an abuser - he uses you to abuse Crystal, and knowing that you are mentally ill, he enjoys abusing you.

Great friends you have Sid.

kenhyderal said...

Spare us your unqualified and inappropriate attempts at psychiatry. I fully support Dr. Harr both in his efforts on behalf of my friend and his quest for justice both for her and for himself. Dr. Harr fights for justice while you and your like hide behind processes designed to deny justice to poor people.

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,
Is there any way we can get you to stop whining?

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal trolled:

"Dr. Harr fights for justice"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - Inigo Montoya

Anonymous said...

from kwnny hissy fit:

"Abe said: ':Both issues have already been decided'........................... Wrongly so and like segregation need to be corrected for the sake of justice."

Wrong.

Both issues were correctly decided. What kenny hissy fit calls correction "for the sake of justice" would be promulgating injustice.

Anonymous said...

harr said:

"kenny said...

"Abe said: 'Both issues have already been decided'........................... Wrongly so and like segregation need to be corrected for the sake of justice."

No one has come remotely close to demonstrating that either issue (Mangum's guilt or that Duke did not discriminate against Sid) was wrongly decided. To the contrary, the facts, evidence, law and common sense show that both issues were properly decided. Simply claiming otherwise does not make it so.

The outcome of both cases is easy to predict. Justice mandates that Mangum remain in prison for the murder of Mr. Daye and that Sid be punished for engaging in frivolous and vexatious litigation. That is exactly what will happen. There are no grey areas. It is not a close call. There is no doubt, uncertainty, or serious disagreement among people familiar with the law and the facts of both cases. If you believed otherwise, you would do more than just troll this website.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


Hey, Abe.

We agree on one thing... there are no gray areas in the two areas. Crystal is innocent..."

harr is wrong. Crystal was guilty of murdering Reginald Daye.

"the stab wound she inflicted [had] nothing to do with Daye's death."

Here, harr, the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty board certification, tries to render an expert medical opinion. harr is incapable of rendering any expert medical opinion. harr admitted that when he admitted he was never a top notch physiciamn.

"It is only a matter of a short time before she is exonerated and freed."

harr has been saying this for quite a long time.

"With regards to the lawsuits I have filed, they are on solid ground and I will prevail..."

harr has also been saying that for quite a long time.

"unlike the lawsuits filed by McCrory, Phil Berger, and Tim Moore against the Department of Justice in defense of the discriminatory House Bill 2."

Like harr's lawsuits, those lawsuits have no merit.

Anonymous said...

harr said:

"Abe, it remains to be seen what happens. I filed several motions in my case which I think deserved to be ruled upon... foremost being that of the recusal. Surely, neither Judge Eagles nor Judge Webster can be impartial in my case."

harr has yet to learn that what he thinks does not establish the merit of his claims.

Moreevidence that harr is a deluded megalomaniac. He believes that whatever he thinks becomes reality.

harr has also demonstrated on multile occasions that he is incapable of meaningful thought.

Anonymous said...

from kenny hissy fit:

"Spare us your unqualified and inappropriate attempts at psychiatry."

kenny hissy fit demonstrates again he can noy handle the truth(acknowledgement to J?ack Nicholson).

"I fully support Dr. Harr both in his efforts on behalf of my friend and his quest for justice both for her and for himself."

kenny hissy fit again shows he does not understand tha concept of justice. Striving to get a murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes is not justice. harr's string of frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits is noot an attempt to obtainjustice.

"Dr. Harr fights for justice"

No, he fights fr injustice, because he resents and wants to take down people who are more accomplished and better off than he is.

"while you and your like hide behind processes designed to deny justice to poor people."

kenny hissy fit flashes the image of a straw fisherman holding up a red herring, an indication he is incapable ofmeaningful thought.

Anonymous said...

time now for more harr/hissy fit anonymous comments, and more harr/hissy fit straw fishermen holding up red herrings

kenhyderal said...

Dr. A said: kenny hissy fit demonstrates again he can noy handle the truth(acknowledgement to J?ack Nicholson).......................... Jack Nicholson was just an actor playing Col.Jessup in a Movie based on the Play "A Few Good Men" The author of the words is Playwright Aaron Sorkin. But that aside, as usual, Dr.A. is guilty of projection and gross hypocrisy

Anonymous said...

from kenny hissy fit:

"Dr. A said: kenny hissy fit demonstrates again he can noy handle the truth(acknowledgement to J?ack Nicholson).......................... Jack Nicholson was just an actor playing Col.Jessup in a Movie based on the Play "A Few Good Men" The author of the words is Playwright Aaron Sorkin. But that aside, as usual, Dr.A. is guilty of projection and gross hypocrisy".

No' I'm not. I'm not trying to get a murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes and calling it a crusade for justice. kenny hissy fit is. So is harr.

kenny hissy fit flashing another straw fisherman holding up a red herring.

kenny hissy fit is again hurling popcorn at me from a range of 500 yards.

Regardless of who wrote the line, kenny hissy fit can't handle the truth.

A Lawyer said...

Hey, A Lawyer.

If I am not mistaken, I believe that the legal statutes and principles state that if there is the mere "appearance of partiality," then the judge should recuse him/herself. I believe there are grounds to support that in this instance. It is rare for a judge to rule contrary to one of their prior rulings on the same case... maybe I should say it is totally unheard of.

If not, since you have access to a law library, could you give me a citation?


Here you go:

"A judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).15 Disqualification is required if a reasonable factual basis exists for doubting the judge's impartiality. Rice v. McKenzie, 581 F.2d 1114, 1116 (4th Cir.1978). The inquiry is whether a reasonable person would have a reasonable basis for questioning the judge's impartiality, not whether the judge is in fact impartial. Id. at 1116. While there is little direct charge of personal bias here, it is worthwhile to recount the rules with respect to that question so far as they may bear on the matter at hand.78 The alleged bias must derive from an extra-judicial source. It must result in an opinion on the merits on a basis other than that learned by the judge from his participation in the matter. United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1710, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966). The nature of the judge's bias must be personal and not judicial. Shaw v. Martin, 733 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1984). A judge is not disqualified because his familiarity with the facts of a case stem from his judicial conduct in presiding over earlier proceedings. United States v. Parker, 742 F.2d 127 (4th Cir.1984)."

That's a quote from In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987)

A Lawyer said...

First of all, res judicata is not applicable in Harr-II because the judgment reached in Harr-I was not the result of a "full and fair" hearing. It was decided based on a Motion to Dismiss, and Judge Webster failed to cite any case law wherein a res judicata was imposed and held to be legitimate in a case based on a decision due to a Motion to Dismiss. Maybe you, or someone in Chicago with access to a law library can cite a case where res judicata was applied to a case decided by a Motion to Dismiss. The only cases that Webster cited were decided on a consent judgment and a summary judgment (based on the plaintiff's failure to respond to a defense Motion to Dismiss in a timely manner)... neither of which transpired in my case. Good luck in finding a relevant citation.

Your prior dismissals were under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 41(b) of those Rules, " any dismissal not under this rule--except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19--operates as an adjudication on the merits."

It took me only a few minutes to find a relevant citation. In Sadler v. Brown, 793 F. Supp. 87, 90 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) , a pro se plaintiff filed a civil rights action which was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). He then filed a second action based on the same incident. The court ruled as follows:

"Finally, the prior decision was on the merits. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a dismissal of an action upon a motion by the defendant, unless otherwise specified by the court dismissing the action, shall constitute an adjudication on the merits. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 776, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946); Weston Funding Corp. v. Lafayette Towers, Inc., 550 F.2d 710, 712–15 (2d Cir.1977); Exchange National Bank of Chicago v. Touche Ross & Co., 544 F.2d 1126, 1130–31 (2d Cir.1976) (“judgments under Rule 12(b)(6) are on the merits, with res judicata effects....”). Since plaintiff's action before Judge Kram was dismissed upon motion of the defendants pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) with no specification that that dismissal was not on the merits, it is clear that plaintiff's previous action was dismissed on the merits, and that this action is barred by res judicata."

Anonymous said...

Kenny is such a great keyboard warrior ... he does nothing but whine, master-debate, and type, but he thinks he's helpful. He's so cute.

kenhyderal said...

Cute? Moi? I've been called a lot of names here but cute was never one of them.

Anonymous said...


Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 36 days.

You have 235 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 18 days since April 23rd, 57 days since the Ides of March and 3,252 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

We all know Crystal had to go away for murder but whatever happened to that creep Nifong who railroaded three young men he knew were innocent? Is he still alive?

Anonymous said...

When will we get the next round of harr/hissy fit a2nonymous posts?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 744   Newer› Newest»