justice4nifong: Lawsuit against Wake County D.A. Lorrin Freeman

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Lawsuit against Wake County D.A. Lorrin Freeman

743 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 743 Newer› Newest»

Man in Black said...: Kenhyderal says
"....Your approbation is not being solicited"

To which I reply:
(_|_); May 11, 2016 at 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny just can't stop whining and spinning. Must be such a sad life.; May 11, 2016 at 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid and Kenny - neither of you have explained why the Statute of Limitations should not bar Sid's case. Why should he get an exception that no one else does?; May 11, 2016 at 2:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: It's a great life if you don't weaken.; May 11, 2016 at 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...: When will we get the next round of harr/hissy fit a2nonymous posts?; May 11, 2016 at 6:05 PM
Anonymous said...: When will we get another anonymous harr and/or hissy fit post?; May 11, 2016 at 6:07 PM
The Great Kilgo said...: The other cranks on liestoopers.com must be proud of you UBES. You da man UBES you da man.; May 11, 2016 at 6:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Either harr or kenny hissy fit or both posting anonymously to create the illusion they have support.; May 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 35 days.

You have 234 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 19 days since April 23rd, 58 days since the Ides of March and 3,253 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 12, 2016 at 2:51 AM
Anonymous said...: hrr and hissy fit never fail to live down to the low expectations I have of them.; May 12, 2016 at 4:54 AM
Man in Black said...: <(x_x)> @=====(^_^@); May 12, 2016 at 6:45 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Man in Black ................................"He was found in the morning stretched upon the floor, with a placid smile upon his face, as though he had been able in his dying moments to look back upon a useful life, and on work well done."
— Sherlock Holmes, A Study In Scarlet; May 12, 2016 at 9:10 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

It appears that you have three options for your June 16 probable cause hearing.

Your first option is to plead for leniency, accepting a gatekeeper order that would preclude you from filing additional lawsuits, but seeking to avoid more punitive sanctions, such as financial penalties. You appear to have rejected this option.

Your second option is to conduct actual legal research, making a bona fide attempt to find court cases that support your legal position. Indeed, the court order mandated this approach in any brief you file, noting that "[s]aid brief must contain citations to relevant cases or other legal authority". You appear to have rejected this option, whining that because you do not have access to the most convenient law library, you cannot be required to provide case law to support your arguments.

You appear to have adopted your third option, in which you further antagonize the court, filing additional frivolous motions. Under this option, you refuse to comply with the specifics contained in the court order. Your motion to recuse was an excellent first step under this option, impugning the integrity of judges with no evidence merely because they ruled again you in Harr II. Consistent with your prior filings, you make no attempt to conduct ant legal research using the significant resources available on the Internet; this motion contained no citation to relevant cases or other legal authority.

This option appears to be designed to result in the imposition of the greatest possible sanctions, thus permitting you to hold yourself out as a martyr. If this is your strategy, i suggest that you hold nothing back and challenge the court to penalize you severely. Indeed, your final filing in Harr I contained some excellent language in which you accused a magistrate of deliberately lying because he inadvertently misstated the timing of when you alleged you handed out business cards, an error that the court noted was "wholly irrelevant" to the legal issues. You may wish to incorporate what the court described as "gratuitous and vile invective" into your brief and/or oral arguments at the hearing.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 12, 2016 at 9:51 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous 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."

Hey, A Lawyer.

I admit that your case is far more relevant than the ones used by Judge Webster, however, I maintain that in Harr-I there was no full and fair hearing.

Now, I challenge you to find a case in which the same judge was assigned to the essentially same case and did not recuse him/herself or was not reassigned. In other words, a case similar to Harr-II and Harr-III where the same judges (magistrate and district judge) are assigned and remain seated on the subsequent similar case.; May 12, 2016 at 11:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: JSwift said...
Sidney,

It appears that you have three options for your June 16 probable cause hearing.

Your first option is to plead for leniency, accepting a gatekeeper order that would preclude you from filing additional lawsuits, but seeking to avoid more punitive sanctions, such as financial penalties. You appear to have rejected this option.

Your second option is to conduct actual legal research, making a bona fide attempt to find court cases that support your legal position. Indeed, the court order mandated this approach in any brief you file, noting that "[s]aid brief must contain citations to relevant cases or other legal authority". You appear to have rejected this option, whining that because you do not have access to the most convenient law library, you cannot be required to provide case law to support your arguments.

You appear to have adopted your third option, in which you further antagonize the court, filing additional frivolous motions. Under this option, you refuse to comply with the specifics contained in the court order. Your motion to recuse was an excellent first step under this option, impugning the integrity of judges with no evidence merely because they ruled again you in Harr II. Consistent with your prior filings, you make no attempt to conduct ant legal research using the significant resources available on the Internet; this motion contained no citation to relevant cases or other legal authority.

This option appears to be designed to result in the imposition of the greatest possible sanctions, thus permitting you to hold yourself out as a martyr. If this is your strategy, i suggest that you hold nothing back and challenge the court to penalize you severely. Indeed, your final filing in Harr I contained some excellent language in which you accused a magistrate of deliberately lying because he inadvertently misstated the timing of when you alleged you handed out business cards, an error that the court noted was "wholly irrelevant" to the legal issues. You may wish to incorporate what the court described as "gratuitous and vile invective" into your brief and/or oral arguments at the hearing.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Hey, JSwift or John D. Smith.

I think I'll choose the fourth option... to wait for an answer to the timely motion that I filed with the court asking for the recusal of the judges and dismissal of the Order to Show Cause.

Or, is the court under no obligation to respond to my motion?; May 12, 2016 at 11:10 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

Why did you decide not to include any citations to relevant cases in your motion to recuse? The cases A Lawyer has provided appear to contradict your argument. You have provided nothing but your opinion. Your motion will be denied.

By the way, you may refer to me by my name, John D. Smith, rather than my pseudonym,JSwift.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 12, 2016 at 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have already chosen JSwift's third option by failing to respond to the specific allegations contained in the Order to Show Cause with arguments supported by "citations to relevant cases or other legal authority," opting instead to file a frivolous motion for recusal. Mr. Smith was simply giving you advice on how you could improve on your approach and further enhance the sanctions that are about to be imposed on you.

In response to your specific question, the court will rule on your motion for recusal, and the Order to Show Cause, and the future of your Harr III lolsuit. You are not going to like what the court does. Not one bit.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 12, 2016 at 11:42 AM
Anonymous said...: harr said:

"
Hey, A Lawyer.

I admit that your case is far more relevant than the ones used by Judge Webster, however, I maintain that in Harr-I there was no full and fair hearing.

Now, I challenge you to find a case in which the same judge was assigned to the essentially same case and did not recuse him/herself or was not reassigned. In other words, a case similar to Harr-II and Harr-III where the same judges (magistrate and district judge) are assigned and remain seated on the subsequent similar case."

harr has just admitted he has kept filing the same lawsuit over and over,after it has already been adjudicated.; May 12, 2016 at 12:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid - no one can find those cases with the same Judge because only you are delusional and stupid enough to keep filing the same lawsuit over and over, and then appealing them.; May 12, 2016 at 12:38 PM
Anonymous said...: The Court has no obligation to respond to your motion. It would be your responsibility to get it calendared for a hearing. Until you do, it just sits there unless they decide to take action.

But, they have zero obligation to respond until they are set for hearing by either party. They don't ever have to set it for hearing, so you'd have to.; May 12, 2016 at 12:39 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 12:29 PM wrote: harr has just admitted he has kept filing the same lawsuit over and over,after it has already been adjudicated."

No one has ever successfully accused Sid of being an effective advocate.

Walt-in-Durham; May 12, 2016 at 2:06 PM
A Lawyer said...: Now, I challenge you to find a case in which the same judge was assigned to the essentially same case and did not recuse him/herself or was not reassigned. In other words, a case similar to Harr-II and Harr-III where the same judges (magistrate and district judge) are assigned and remain seated on the subsequent similar case.

Did you miss my post of May 10 at 2:34 PM?; May 12, 2016 at 3:51 PM
Anonymous said...: harrian justice:

I do not provide evidence to support my allegations. I keep filing my lawsuit until I get a judge who will find in favor of me.; May 13, 2016 at 3:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 34 days.

You have 233 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 20 days since April 23rd, 59 days since the Ides of March and 3,254 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 13, 2016 at 3:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

On May 3, you said that a lot was going to break for Crystal. Any update?; May 13, 2016 at 5:28 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Now, I challenge you to find a case in which the same judge was assigned to the essentially same case and did not recuse him/herself or was not reassigned. In other words, a case similar to Harr-II and Harr-III where the same judges (magistrate and district judge) are assigned and remain seated on the subsequent similar case.

Did you miss my post of May 10 at 2:34 PM?

Hey, A Lawyer.

No, I did not miss your post, but I did not look up the cases at that time. I have just reviewed them, however, and have these comments:
(1) Regarding the first case of US v. Grinnell, I did not see any correlation between the cases. The review of the case I read made no mention that the same judge presided over the same case;
(2) In the Shaw v. Martin case, first, it is a criminal, not civil case and Shaw pleaded guilty initially. Also, it appears that the alleged judicial bias is based upon the judge conversing with Shaw's new attorney regarding the case and not based upon the judge ruling in a previous case; and
(3) In US v. Parker, again, a criminal and not civil case, the review I read stated as follows: "To ensure impartiality, Judge Blatt insisted that the case be tried to a jury."

There is no indication from the Order to Show Cause which I received that Judge Eagles plans to have a jury trial preside over the hearing. Clearly, by Judge Blatt demanding that a jury decide the subsequent hearing, he is doing more to remove the appearance of bias than if he himself were to adjucicate it as a judge.

Thank you, A Lawyer for your help in finding these cases (which I am unable to access because I am barred from the law library). If you are able to find a civil case in which a judge's initial ruling is by a Motion to Dismiss, and the same judge presides over a re-filed case, then I would really appreciate knowing about it.

Your participation in this comment section, along with Walt's and others, is what makes this blog site enlightening and educational for all... and I appreciate it.; May 13, 2016 at 5:33 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,

On May 3, you said that a lot was going to break for Crystal. Any update?

Nothing that I can share with you at this time. Still actively working and I believe fruits of my labors will be born soon. Keep in mind, that as stubborn as the Governor and Republican led Assembly is when it comes to HB-2, in Mangum's case, it is essentially the World v. Crystal Mangum. The State and the media-types, as well as politicos, district attorneys, and others are subject to embarrassment, at the least, once Mangum is freed and exonerated... so all are fighting like hades to keep that from happening. I am but a single David battling a slew of Goliaths.; May 13, 2016 at 5:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
The Court has no obligation to respond to your motion. It would be your responsibility to get it calendared for a hearing. Until you do, it just sits there unless they decide to take action.

But, they have zero obligation to respond until they are set for hearing by either party. They don't ever have to set it for hearing, so you'd have to.

Hey, thanks for that information... I think I'll look into that! Hopefully, the court will proceed to schedule a hearing.; May 13, 2016 at 5:42 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Kenhyderal,
Is there any way we can get you to stop whining?

gui, mon ami,

kenhyderal is not a whiner... he's a "truth-sayer."; May 14, 2016 at 3:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Now, I challenge you to find a case in which the same judge was assigned to the essentially same case and did not recuse him/herself or was not reassigned. In other words, a case similar to Harr-II and Harr-III where the same judges (magistrate and district judge) are assigned and remain seated on the subsequent similar case.

Did you miss my post of May 10 at 2:34 PM?

Hey, A Lawyer.

If I am not mistaken, the cases you cited had to do with res judicata. What I am asking about has to do with a judge presiding as sole adjudicator over two similar lawsuits by the same plaintiff (who was ruled against initially by the judge).

Even in US v. Parker, Judge Blatt insisted that a jury trial be held to ensure impartiality. (By the way, thanks for the citation... I think I'll use it in the future.)

Although I would not desire to have Judges Eagles or Webster presiding over my trial, it would be far more tolerable if the adjudicatory duties were in the hands of a jury... I could live with that.

Anyway, let me know if you find any cases wherein the judge did not recuse him/herself.; May 14, 2016 at 3:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid wrote: "Hey, A Lawyer.

If I am not mistaken, the cases you cited had to do with res judicata."

They did. Res judicata is a problem for you. Again, you have failed to cite authority to discuss the issue.

"What I am asking about has to do with a judge presiding as sole adjudicator over two similar lawsuits by the same plaintiff (who was ruled against initially by the judge)."

Remember Sid, the Judge in a 12(b)(6) motion assumes all the facts plead by the plaintiff are true. Judge Eagles did that and she found that even if all you said was true, you had no case. No adjudication of the facts is necessary. Thus no need for a jury. In civil cases the jury cannot decide the law, only judges.

"Although I would not desire to have Judges Eagles or Webster presiding over my trial, it would be far more tolerable if the adjudicatory duties were in the hands of a jury... I could live with that."

You won't be getting a trial because res judicata says your case has been decided. You are just a serial filer of the same frivolous lawsuit.

Walt-in-Durham; May 14, 2016 at 4:24 AM
Anonymous said...: harr said:

"kenhyderal is not a whiner... he's a "truth-sayer.'"

harr should explain how someone who never tells the truth(i.e. harr) can call someone a"truth-sayer".; May 14, 2016 at 4:46 AM
Anonymous said...: When will we get the next round of harr/hissy fit a2nonymous posts?; May 14, 2016 at 5:18 AM
Anonymous said...: harr:

Each and every time you refer to crystal as the"victim/accuser" in the Duke rape case(it was the DukeRape Hoax), you lie.

Each and every time you refer to nifong as a decent, honorable, ethical prosecutor, you lie.

Each and every time you claim Shan Carter acted in self defense when he gnned down a fleeing, unarmed man, in the process killing an innocent child, you lie.; May 14, 2016 at 5:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
The Court has no obligation to respond to your motion. It would be your responsibility to get it calendared for a hearing. Until you do, it just sits there unless they decide to take action.

But, they have zero obligation to respond until they are set for hearing by either party. They don't ever have to set it for hearing, so you'd have to.

Since I don't have access to a law library, I am unable to find out how to put a motion on a court calendar as you suggested. Can you direct me to a source to explain how that is done to assure that my motion receives a hearing instead of being ignored? This would be for the Middle District of U.S. District Court in North Carolina. Thanks.; May 14, 2016 at 5:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid wrote: "Hey, A Lawyer.

If I am not mistaken, the cases you cited had to do with res judicata."

They did. Res judicata is a problem for you. Again, you have failed to cite authority to discuss the issue.

"What I am asking about has to do with a judge presiding as sole adjudicator over two similar lawsuits by the same plaintiff (who was ruled against initially by the judge)."

Remember Sid, the Judge in a 12(b)(6) motion assumes all the facts plead by the plaintiff are true. Judge Eagles did that and she found that even if all you said was true, you had no case. No adjudication of the facts is necessary. Thus no need for a jury. In civil cases the jury cannot decide the law, only judges.

"Although I would not desire to have Judges Eagles or Webster presiding over my trial, it would be far more tolerable if the adjudicatory duties were in the hands of a jury... I could live with that."

You won't be getting a trial because res judicata says your case has been decided. You are just a serial filer of the same frivolous lawsuit.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

When Heather Sue Mercer filed a sex discrimination case against Duke University in the mid-1990s because she was cut from the men's varsity football team, would you consider that a "frivolous lawsuit"?

If not, why?; May 14, 2016 at 5:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 33 days.

You have 232 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 21 days since April 23rd, 60 days since the Ides of March and 3,255 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 14, 2016 at 6:14 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 33 days.

You have 232 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 21 days since April 23rd, 60 days since the Ides of March and 3,255 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Yes, I will stand tall, but before what man? If you're referencing Judge Eagles, she's a woman.; May 14, 2016 at 6:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

Please don't be disingenuous. "The Man" is a phrase denoting authority. Even if you were blissfully ignorant, a quick Google search could have answered the question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man; May 14, 2016 at 6:29 AM
A Lawyer said...: When Heather Sue Mercer filed a sex discrimination case against Duke University in the mid-1990s because she was cut from the men's varsity football team, would you consider that a "frivolous lawsuit"?

Asked and answered a hundred times. She sued under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits schools receiving federal financial aid from discriminating by sex in student athletic programs. You didn't (and couldn't) sue under Title IX. You sued under section 1983, which applies only to discrimination by state officials and agencies, not private universities.; May 14, 2016 at 8:23 AM
Anonymous said...: narr said:

"Hey, Walt.

When Heather Sue Mercer filed a sex discrimination case against Duke University in the mid-1990s because she was cut from the men's varsity football team, would you consider that a "frivolous lawsuit"?

If not, why?"

Heather Sue Mercer had a case against Duke. You do not. That is why your lawsuit is frivolous.; May 14, 2016 at 8:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

"Standing tall before the man" is a euphemism. It means that you will be brought before your superiors to answer for your misdeeds.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 14, 2016 at 9:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Sid: Please don't be disingenuous. "The Man" is a phrase denoting authority. Even if you were blissfully ignorant, a quick Google search could have answered the question".......................................... Dr. Harr is neither disingenuous or ignorant. His response to Abe's sarcasm, an expression of derision, was returned in the same vein it was put forward.; May 14, 2016 at 3:16 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

Sid responded to me with an expression of ignorance.

You need to troll harder.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 14, 2016 at 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

"....Your approbation is not being solicited"; May 14, 2016 at 5:03 PM
The Great Kilgo said...: Where's my main man Ubes? He must be about ready to have another liestopperscrank meltdown.

SPIN UBES SPIN

QUACK QUACK QUACK

SPIN UBES SPIN; May 14, 2016 at 6:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Either harr or kenny hissy fit or both posting anonymously to create the illusion they have support.; May 14, 2016 at 6:14 PM
Anonymous said...: hrr and hissy fit never fail to live down to the low expectations I have of them.; May 14, 2016 at 6:15 PM
kenhyderal said...: What expectations do you have for an American electorate that could conceivably chose Donald Trump as their President. The way to make America great again is to give all it citizens decent health care, decent education and a decent system of justice; areas where now America performs abysmally. That's what great nations do.; May 14, 2016 at 8:46 PM
Anonymous said...: For kenny hissy fit:

It's kind of hypocritical that someone who thinks that getting a murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes, who thinks a deluded megalomaniac who files frivolous non meritorious lawsuits is denied justice when his suits are dismissed, sets himself up as an expert on what is a true justice system.; May 15, 2016 at 3:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 32 days.

You have 231 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 22 days since April 23rd, 61 days since the Ides of March and 3,256 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 15, 2016 at 5:42 AM
Anonymous said...: ken edwards is nothing by a self ballooned, self important, cut n paste commenter who has not had an original thought since 2006. He just throws out statements, occasionally tries to wow us with his big words, and conveniently forgets to credit other people's writing. In other wo; May 15, 2016 at 7:38 AM
Anonymous said...: ken edwards is nothing by a self ballooned, self important, cut n paste commenter who has not had an original thought since 2006. He just throws out statements, occasionally tries to wow us with his big words, and conveniently forgets to credit other people's writing. In other words, a Harr-Nifong clone.
who cares.................; May 15, 2016 at 7:40 AM
Anonymous said...: http://everything.explained.today/Duke_lacrosse_case/; May 15, 2016 at 7:42 AM
Anonymous said...: http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2007/04/duke-lacrosse-case-nevermind.html; May 15, 2016 at 7:43 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " conveniently forgets to credit other people's writing.".......................................................................... That happened once in 2012 and I was the one who subsequently identified the reporter in The Sri Lankan Guardian Shenali Waudge from whose report I got my information. It was not cut a and paste, I simply paraphrased it without crediting her. Since then I've been accused scores of times as being a plagiarist without any examples, yet there's nary a word about the frequent posts by Malek Williams and other Anonymous posters who regularly plagiarize old post by myself and by Dr. Harr, passing them off as their own contribution. In this respect as in most matters I'm unfairly held to a higher standard; but, that's OK impartial readers can see the obvious.; May 15, 2016 at 8:57 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 7:42 "everything.explained.today"......................... Hardly. This report although comprehensive is highly selective and never addresses the crucial questions.; May 15, 2016 at 9:19 AM
kenhyderal said...: To get a sense of the blog Freedom Eden just read some of the ignorant, obscene un- censored letters; May 15, 2016 at 9:21 AM
The Great Kilgo said...: Sid, kenhyderal told me that you would give me his e-mail address so that I can contact him. If you have his e-mail address you should post it.; May 15, 2016 at 9:31 AM
Anonymous said...: kennyhyderal stated: To get a sense of the blog Freedom Eden just read some of the ignorant, obscene un- censored letters

Most of the comments are fine. The worst are probably less ignorant than your comments.; May 15, 2016 at 10:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid:

"Standing tall before the man" is a euphemism. It means that you will be brought before your superiors to answer for your misdeeds.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

What superiors? Don't you know that all men are created equal?; May 15, 2016 at 10:55 AM
Anonymous said...: from kenny hissy fit:

"...in most matters I'm unfairly held to a higher standard; but, that's OK impartial readers can see the obvious."

Wrong.

Most readers can see you are incapable of achieving any higher standard.; May 15, 2016 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: harr said:

"
What superiors? Don't you know that all men are created equal?"

Hypocritical comment from a poster who obviously and delusionally believes he is a superior being.; May 15, 2016 at 11:03 AM
Anonymous said...: from kenny hissy fit:

"@ Anonymous 7:42 "everything.explained.today"......................... Hardly. This report although comprehensive is highly selective and never addresses the crucial questions."

hissy fit's "crucisl wuestions" amount to, who were the mystery rapists who raped crystal at the Lacrosse party.

There is no evidence crystal was raped at the Lacrosse party. There is no evidence that any unidentified people ever attended the party.

hissy fit claims that soe poster named kilgo told him he had an anonymous lacrosse player friend who witnessed the unknown rapists attacking crystal. kilgo disappeared from this blog years ago and took all his posts with him. Sometime after kilgo disappeared, hissy fit was challenged to provide evidence of the mystery rapists. That was when hissy fit ever mentioned kilgo's anonymous lacrosse player friend. In over 10 years since the Duke Rape Hoax, no member of the Lacrosse team has come forward to corroborate hissy fit's story. hissy fit has offered explanations. The only credible explanation is that hissy fit fabricated the story of the anonymous lacrosse player friend of kilgo.; May 15, 2016 at 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...: hissy fit also identifies as a crucial issue the failure to identify the men whose DNA had been found on crystal's person after she made her allegations of rape.

hissy fit tries to ignore the established fact that nifong concealed that evidence, that the evidence never came to light until months after it was obtained, after the defense attorneys filed a motion to have nifong turn over the raw data to them, after one attorney, Brad Bannon, analyzed the data and found the evidence. The former Lab Director of DNA Security admitted under oath that nifong had become aware of the evidence months before the raw data was turned over to the defense, and then he and nifong agreed not to report that evidence to the defense. hissy fit has maintained that nifong did not conceal the evidence.; May 15, 2016 at 11:17 AM
Anonymous said...: One more for kenny hissy fit:

hisssy fit has maintained that nifong charged the Lacrosse players with sexual assault and kidnapping but not rape. It has been a matter of public record for years that nifong had David Evans, Reade Seligman and COlin FInnerty charged with first degree rape in April of 2006.

So, does any one believe that hissy fit is really aware of what the crucial issues were?; May 15, 2016 at 11:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 11:19 AM asks: So, does any one believe that hissy fit is really aware of what the crucial issues were?

Yes. Kenny Hissy Fit is aware of the crucial issues and the facts. However, Kenny Hissy Fit is a troll. His(her) posts are merely designed to annoy other posters. Kenny Hissy Fit does not actually believe what (s)he posts.; May 15, 2016 at 12:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Any comment on the attached? I thought that Canadians were better than this.

Sid,

How do you prevent people like this from taking advantage of the law or do you support this kind of behavior?; May 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM
Anonymous said...: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/06/u-of-t-bathrooms-voyeurism_n_8253970.html; May 15, 2016 at 1:29 PM
Anonymous said...: When will we get the next round of harr/hissy fit a2nonymous posts?; May 15, 2016 at 3:40 PM
Anonymous said...: When will we get another anonymous harr and/or hissy fit post?; May 15, 2016 at 3:57 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "When will we get the next round of harr/hissy fit a2nonymous posts?".............................. Anybody, other than me, see the irony here?; May 15, 2016 at 4:02 PM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 15, 2016 at 4:10 PM
kenhyderal said...: The Fake Kilgo said: "Sid, kenhyderal told me that you would give me his e-mail address so that I can contact him. If you have his e-mail address you should post it"..........................Just e-mail Dr.Harr at justice4nifong@gmail.com and he will forward the letter to me.; May 15, 2016 at 4:18 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Any comment on the attached? I thought that Canadians were better than this."..................................................There are perverts everywhere, even in same sex toilets. An incident last September should not be used as a justification to limit transgender people's human rights. Judging from the behaviors, there were perverts present at the Duke Lacrosse Party; May 15, 2016 at 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...: from kenny hiussy fit:

"Anonymous said: "Any comment on the attached? I thought that Canadians were better than this."..................................................There are perverts everywhere, even in same sex toilets. An incident last September should not be used as a justification to limit transgender people's human rights. Judging from the behaviors, there were perverts present at the Duke Lacrosse Party"

Another iteration of hissy fit insisting crystal was raped at the lacrosse party even though he can produce no evidence that any rape ever took place.; May 15, 2016 at 5:03 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny hissy fit again:

"Anonymous said: "Any comment on the attached? I thought that Canadians were better than this."..................................................There are perverts everywhere, even in same sex toilets. An incident last September should not be used as a justification to limit transgender people's human rights. Judging from the behaviors, there were perverts present at the Duke Lacrosse Party"

Any one note the irony here. kenny can not see how perverse it is to falsely accuse innocent men of being sex criminals.

hissy fit, you have presented no evidence that crystal was raped.; May 15, 2016 at 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: When will we get the next round of harr/hissy fit a2nonymous posts?; May 15, 2016 at 5:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"What superiors? Don't you know that all men are created equal?"

Everyone is created equal; where we end up in life is something altogether different.

In court the judge is in charge. She is superior to you and everyone else in her court. You do as she says and you answer to her if you don't. You would be well served to keep that in mind.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 15, 2016 at 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

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

May 15, 2016 at 5:35 PM

Anybody, other than me, see the irony here?; May 15, 2016 at 6:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 31 days.

You have 230 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 23 days since April 23rd, 62 days since the Ides of March and 3,257 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 16, 2016 at 3:07 AM
Anonymous said...: When will we get the next round of harr/hissy fit a2nonymous posts?; May 16, 2016 at 5:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

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

May 16, 2016 at 5:36 PM

Anybody, other than me, see the irony here?; May 16, 2016 at 5:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Either harr or kenny hissy fit or both posting anonymously to create the illusion they have support.; May 16, 2016 at 5:40 PM
desconocido said...: Kenhyderal,
Por favor, dime como puedo hacer para mandarte una informacion importantisima!; May 16, 2016 at 5:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Hissy fit, hissy fit
Every morning you greet me
Small and white, clean and bright
You look happy to meet me
Blossom of snow may you bloom and grow
Bloom and grow forever
Hissy fit, hissy fit; May 16, 2016 at 6:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Hissy fit, hissy fit
Every morning you greet me
Small and white, clean and bright
You look happy to meet me
Blossom of snow may you bloom and grow
Bloom and grow forever
Hissy fit, hissy fit

Bless The Great North forever
Bless The Great North forever; May 16, 2016 at 6:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Small and white" .........................Huh?; May 16, 2016 at 9:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous desconocido said: Kenhyderal, Por favor, dime como puedo hacer para mandarte una informacion importantisima!"....................................................
¿Has visto mi mensaje en el foro 5-15-16 @4.18 ?; May 16, 2016 at 9:42 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid said:

"What superiors? Don't you know that all men are created equal?"

Everyone is created equal; where we end up in life is something altogether different.

In court the judge is in charge. She is superior to you and everyone else in her court. You do as she says and you answer to her if you don't. You would be well served to keep that in mind.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe.

Thanks for the advice. It is my hope that I never have to face Eagles (or for that matter, Schroeder, Webster, or Sharp) in a courtroom. We'll have to see what happens on that front.

Thanks also for the updates.
Am avidly working... it's only a short matter of time before my justice objectives are met.; May 17, 2016 at 3:32 AM
Anonymous said...: harr said:

"Am avidly working... it's only a short matter of time before my justice objectives are met."

harr has ben saying that for years and years and years.; May 17, 2016 at 3:42 AM
Anonymous said...: And in all the years harr has been saying that, he has accomplished nothing.; May 17, 2016 at 5:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 30 days.

You have 229 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 24 days since April 23rd, 63 days since the Ides of March and 3,258 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 17, 2016 at 5:21 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

The brief for your Rule 11 hearing is due in two weeks. I suggest you take this seriously.

1. Do not base your strategy on the court accepting your recusal motion. You provided no "citations to relevant cases or other legal authority." Assume the hearing will proceed as scheduled on June 16.

2. You must conduct real legal research. The order required that a brief must contain "citations to relevant cases or other legal authority." Heed this requirement. The court will not accept your excuse that you cannot use the law library. There are other sources available.

3. Recognize your obligations. You must demonstrate a legal basis for claims. Although courts provide leeway to a pro se plaintiff, they appear to have run out of patience. The court ruled against you: res judicata does not permit a second lawsuit in a matter already decided; Harr I was decided on its merits. The court provided case law to support its conclusions. You ignored this analysis. You read none of the case law. You provided no case law of your own. You filed a third lawsuit on the same case, providing no new information, repeating the same "irrelevant and scurrilous contentions.”

4. Before you file your brief, post it and ask readers for advice. This blog is a valuable resource. You have chosen to ignore it. You continue to do so at your own peril.

5. Do not pursue your motion to recuse unless you seek martyrdom. That motion antagonizes a court that is neither impressed nor amused. If you focus on frivolous filings, you risk the court imposing more severe sanctions.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 17, 2016 at 7:00 AM
A Lawyer said...: If you focus on frivolous filings, you risk the court imposing more severe sanctions.

I've been warning Dr. Harr about that ever since he filed Harr I. He doesn't seem inclined to listen.; May 17, 2016 at 7:59 AM
Walt said...: A Lawyer wrote: "I've been warning Dr. Harr about that ever since he filed Harr I. He doesn't seem inclined to listen."

Indeed, you have. In fact, you wrote: "... 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)" on May, 10 at 2:34 PM. Still Sid asked, not once, but twice, for cases where a Judge did not recuse himself. In doing so, Sid ignored your most useful information and the Fourth Circuit's holdings in Parker, supra and Beard, supra. While U.S. v. Parker was a criminal case, the standard for recusal is the same in criminal and civil matters. Sid ignores that and he ignores the fact that In Re Beard is a civil case and also from the Fourth Circuit. I doubt that he will address the controlling nature of those Fourth Circuit precedents.

To quote myself, "no one has ever successfully accused Sid of being an effective advocate."

Walt-in-Durham; May 17, 2016 at 8:29 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Hey, Walt.

When Heather Sue Mercer filed a sex discrimination case against Duke University in the mid-1990s because she was cut from the men's varsity football team, would you consider that a "frivolous lawsuit"?

If not, why?"

You have been given the answer to that question many times before. Mercer was proceeding under Title IX. Under Title IX she had a case and thus did not file a frivolous lawsuit. You filed under Section 1983 that does not apply to any of the people or institutions you sued in Harr I. Harr I was adjudicated on the merits all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. You lost at every level. Harr II was frivolous as it was filed under the same theory as Harr I and was thus barred by the doctrine of res judicata as well as it lacked merit because you were proceeding under Section 1983. Harr III is worse than Harr II as you have already been told twice by the courts that you have no case, yet you continued to proceed with the same theory in violation of the very mild sanctions the court imposed on you previously.

In short, Mercer's case was not frivolous, yours are. I have no doubt that you will not understand, or decide to ignore me, just as you ignore all the other wise people on this board. That is your fundamental shortcoming as an advocate.

Walt-in-Durham; May 17, 2016 at 8:36 AM
Anonymous said...: When will we get the next round of harr/hissy fit a2nonymous posts?; May 17, 2016 at 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

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

Anybody, other than me, see the irony here?; May 17, 2016 at 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Either harr or kenny hissy fit or both posting anonymously to create the illusion they have support.; May 17, 2016 at 3:50 PM
Anonymous said...: ken edwards is nothing by a self ballooned, self important, cut n paste commenter who has not had an original thought since 2006. He just throws out statements, occasionally tries to wow us with his big words, and conveniently forgets to credit other people's writing. In other words, a Harr-Nifong clone.; May 17, 2016 at 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: "ken edwards... has not had an original thought since 2006
'

You are unfair. Kenny's mystery rapist hypothesis, although preposterous, is original. I have heard no one else propose that ridiculous theory.; May 17, 2016 at 4:59 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: about me "self important, cut n paste commenter who has not had an original thought since 2006" ......................... You cant show a single cut and paste post I have made on this blog whereas I have demonstrated even on this recent thread that Malek Williams and Beverly Boykin are cutting and pasting old original posts by me and by Dr. Harr and passing them off as their own thoughts. You, like so may anonymous posters here are susceptible to accepting meta-narratives as fact and gullibly buying into them.; May 17, 2016 at 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...: from kenny hissy ft:

" You, like so may anonymous posters here are susceptible to accepting meta-narratives as fact and gullibly buying into them."

So what do you call fabricating the story of mystery rapists at the Lacrosse party ant passing it off as fact?; May 18, 2016 at 2:44 AM
Anonymous said...: for kenny hissy fit

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Metanarrative

"Metanarrative or grand narrative or mater narrative is a term developed by Jean-François Lyotard to mean a theory that tries to give a totalizing, comprehensive account to various historical events, experiences, and social, cultural phenomena based upon the appeal to universal truth or universal values."

hissy fit is preaching that crystal was raped at the lacrosse party by unidentified party attendees. As crystal was not raped at the party, as there were no unidentified party attendees, and hissy fit has provided no evidence crystal was raped and no evidence there were unidentified attendees, it is obvious hissy fit is not appealing to truth or to anything of real value.

The hissy fit definition of a meta narrative is seeing something which is not there. And as hissy fit is claiming a rape happened, perpetrated by mystery rapists at the party, it is also obvious hissy fit is indulging in a hissy fit meta narrative.; May 18, 2016 at 4:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid - rather than continuously whining about the lack of access to the Federal Law Library why don't you just use Google Scholar or even just regular Google - something that many lawyers use? Very few lawyers ever go to the law library, and a lot don't pay a lot of money for the online services. You can find the answers you seek if you use Google.

Of course, you don't like doing that, because it's easier to whine - when you actually look up the law, you can find out things you are wrong on like felony murder, the statute of limitations, and the rest.

For you it's easier to just whine and complain and play the part of a martyr rather than actually try to do anything useful.; May 18, 2016 at 4:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 29 days.

You have 228 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 25 days since April 23rd, 64 days since the Ides of March and 3,259 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 18, 2016 at 5:27 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

You now have 13 days until your brief for your Rule 11 hearing is due. I hope that you are making progress. As a reminder, the Court Order required that a brief must include "citations to relevant cases or other legal authority."

Assume the hearing will proceed as scheduled on June 16.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 18, 2016 at 9:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Nah, Sidney is going to say he is ill on June 16. Many ways to get out of going to court.; May 18, 2016 at 6:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 35 days.

You have 234 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 19 days since April 23rd, 58 days since the Ides of March and 3,253 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 19, 2016 at 2:17 AM
Anonymous said...: ATTENTION EVERYONE:

The countdown I posted earlier today is wrong.

Sid will be standing tall before the man in 28 days.

He has 227 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 26 days since April 23rd, 65 days since the Ides of March and 3,260 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Please disregard my previous post.

I apologize for any inconvenience.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 19, 2016 at 5:16 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

You now have 12 days until your brief for your Rule 11 hearing is due. I hope that you are making progress. As a reminder, the Court Order required that a brief must include "citations to relevant cases or other legal authority."

Assume the hearing will proceed as scheduled on June 16.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 19, 2016 at 8:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 27 days.

You have 226 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 27 days since April 23rd, 66 days since the Ides of March and 3,261 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 20, 2016 at 3:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: JSwift said...
Sidney,

You now have 12 days until your brief for your Rule 11 hearing is due. I hope that you are making progress. As a reminder, the Court Order required that a brief must include "citations to relevant cases or other legal authority."

Assume the hearing will proceed as scheduled on June 16.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Hey, John D.

Thanks for the well wishes.

Regarding citations, don't you think it's ridiculous for them to demand them if they prohibit me from having access to the law library?

Can you conger up a legitimate reason for me, as a Pro Se litigant, to be banned from the law library?; May 20, 2016 at 5:01 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

Just thought I'd give a heads up as to why I have not been very active recently on commenting. Have been extremely occupied by an important sharlog, which I hope to have completed by the first of next week. Ergo, there is likely to be a paucity of replies to comments over the next few days.

As far as Crystal's freedom and exoneration, I am hopeful that those objectives will be met sometime during the middle of next month... that's what I'm shooting for, at least. Be patient, as cracks in the conspiratorial wall of injustice will be in evidence soon.

As you were.; May 20, 2016 at 5:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There is no chance that Mangum is going to be released and exonerated next month. It is outside the realm of possibility.

Stop doing this to yourself. You look foolish.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 20, 2016 at 5:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid - whining about not having access to the Law Library isn't going to get you anywhere, because you can access other Law Libraries, and even use Google Scholar online for free. Plus, the Raleigh Law Library is the Eastern District, you have sued in the Middle District - they are going to tell you that they have no control over your access to the Law Library in the Middle District.

As for Crystal, it's sad how much you keep lying to her. Nothing has been filed that can do anything for her conviction. Nothing. So, nothing will happen by the middle of the next month.

You are a sad, pathetic, mentally ill old man who likes to abuse young women.; May 20, 2016 at 7:07 AM
Anonymous said...: harr(stupidly) said:

"Can you conger up a legitimate reason for me, as a Pro Se litigant, to be banned from the law library?"

You are not a lawyer.; May 20, 2016 at 7:10 AM
Anonymous said...: ^^^ I meant law library in the Eastern District.

But, in any event, whining won't help you.

And, you still haven't explained why the Statute of Limitations should apply to everyone in the Country but you.; May 20, 2016 at 7:11 AM
Anonymous said...: harr said:

"Just thought I'd give a heads up as to why I have not been very active recently on commenting. Have been extremely occupied by an important sharlog, which I hope to have completed by the first of next week. Ergo, there is likely to be a paucity of replies to comments over the next few days."

If this is an important Sharlog, it will be a first. You have yet to post anything of any importance.

"As far as Crystal's freedom and exoneration, I am hopeful that those objectives will be met sometime during the middle of next month... that's what I'm shooting for, at least. Be patient, as cracks in the conspiratorial wall of injustice will be in evidence soon."

First there is no wall of injustice, except in your deluded mrgalomaniacal imagination. What you have been firing at your wall of injustice are salvos of blanks and duds.; May 20, 2016 at 7:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

If your strategy is to whine about not having access to the law library in Raleigh, it's going to end poorly for you. Your lawsuit will be dismissed, and the Court will impose sanctions, including a gatekeeper order.

When that happens, please don't come here complaining and pretending to be surprised.; May 20, 2016 at 8:20 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

You now have 11 days until your brief for your Rule 11 hearing is due. I again encourage you to take this seriously. Your decision to focus your resources on producing another (likely repetitive) sharlog rather than on your brief will not serve you well.

I hope that you are making progress. As a reminder, the Court Order required that a brief must include "citations to relevant cases or other legal authority."

In response to your first question, I do not think this request is "ridiculous" because you do not have access to the law library most convenient to you. As has been noted repeatedly, other sources are available to you. I note that the rules require any plaintiff, including those who file pro se, to ensure that their claims have a legal basis. You have failed to do so, even after a court has twice concluded that your claims have no such basis. You didn't even modify or enhance your arguments to respond to the specific objections raised by the court.

Based on your consistent inability to admit error (or even to consider that you might be wrong), granting you the right to use the law library would serve no purpose. You would continue to ignore all information that is inconsistent with your preconceived beliefs.

Frankly, justice would be well served if the court gave you the right to use the law library for your legal research, but required that you produce briefs discussing each of the dozen or so ridiculous legal theories you have argued in your various filings. The court could then review your briefs and hold you in contempt for any brief that did not contain "citations to relevant cases or other legal authority" and instead relied on "irrelevant and scurrilous contentions.” That exercise would demonstrate the unimportance of a physical library to someone who will not learn.

Assume the hearing will proceed as scheduled on June 16.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 20, 2016 at 9:39 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney said,
"As far as Crystal's freedom and exoneration, I am hopeful that those objectives will be met sometime during the middle of next month... that's what I'm shooting for, at least. Be patient, as cracks in the conspiratorial wall of injustice will be in evidence soon."

So, can we count 0n something happening by, say, June 18?; May 20, 2016 at 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 26 days.

You have 225 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 28 days since April 23rd, 67 days since the Ides of March and 3,262 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 21, 2016 at 5:42 AM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...

"That happened once in 2012 and I was the one who subsequently identified the reporter in The Sri Lankan Guardian Shenali Waudge from whose report I got my information. It was not cut a and paste, I simply paraphrased it without crediting her."

May 15, 2016 at 8:57 AM

Kenny, Your are incorrect when you say that your cutting and pasting happened only one time. Over the years, posters at this blog have pointed out many examples, a couple of which appear below. If you can't be truthful about this, how can you expect anyone to believe your story about Kilgo?

From Kenny's post of 11/15/11 at 5:11 p.m.:

"...This law made Upper Canada the first British colony to abolish slavery. The Act remained in force until 1833 when the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act abolished slavery in all parts of the British Empire."

From Wikipedia entry titled "Act Against Slavery":

"...This law made Upper Canada the first British colony to abolish slavery. The Act remained in force until 1833 when the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act abolished slavery in most parts of the British Empire."

From Kenny's post of 9/18/11 at 2:08 p.m.:

"A blood alcohol level of about 300-400 mg per 100 ml will usually cause loss of consciousness. However, highly tolerant individuals may show only moderate drunkeness at 400 mg per 100 ml, the normal LD50."

From Yahoo Answers, Why do people vomit when they dring a lot?:

"A blood alcohol level of about 300-400 mg per 100 ml will usually cause loss of consciousness. However, highly tolerant individuals may show only moderate drunkeness at 400 mg per 100 ml, the normal LD50."; May 21, 2016 at 6:08 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Regarding citations, don't you think it's ridiculous for them to demand them if they prohibit me from having access to the law library?"

There you go again, seeking special treatment not available to others. The Middle District law library isn't available to attorneys either. Yet, we have to cite authority. You do have law libraries available to you. NCCU and UNC-CH have law libraries that are open to the public. Every lawyer in Raleigh and every member of the public who wants to use a public law library has to go to Durham or Chapel Hill, as do you. Nothing special about your treatment. It may be inconvenient to you, but that's not a reason for you to avoid the rules. Frankly, you can google most of the relevant case law anyway. It's available from so many sources that law libraries are not that exclusive anymore. What you really want is something that the law libraries won't provide to you or anyone. That is, you want legal advice. Because the law libraries are open to all, to maintain their even handedness, they can provide advice to no one.

"Can you conger up a legitimate reason for me, as a Pro Se litigant, to be banned from the law library?"

As I wrote, the middle district library is not available to members of the bar either. Of course, you disregard all the free legal resources made available to you right here, so I doubt you would make good use of the resources of a law library. You, as John D. Smith correctly observes, refuse to learn.

Walt-in-Durham; May 21, 2016 at 6:55 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 6:08 AM, well put, well put! Kenny is a serial cutter and paster.

Walt-in-Durham; May 21, 2016 at 6:57 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "As far as Crystal's freedom and exoneration, I am hopeful that those objectives will be met sometime during the middle of next month... that's what I'm shooting for, at least. Be patient, as cracks in the conspiratorial wall of injustice will be in evidence soon."

LOL, you are good for a chuckle from time to time. There is no conspiracy. The only injustice done was Crystal lying about a rape that didn't happen, Crystal burning up Milton's shoes, and Crystal stabbing the unfortunate Daye.

Walt-in-Durham; May 21, 2016 at 7:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Not only is Kenny a serial cutter and paster, he is a serial liar.; May 21, 2016 at 8:17 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: `Anonymous at 6:08 AM, well put, well put! Kenny is a serial cutter and paster.................................... Oh my God! Kenhyderal got information from Wikipedia and Google Answers and posted it without sourcing it. Scandalous! Meanwhile, Malek Williams and Beverly Boykin seem to have complete license to cut and past old posts from Dr. Harr and myself with impunity and get nary a word of criticism from sanctimonious critics. Wikipedia and Google Answers are compilations of encyclopedic knowledge. The information they provide is sourced and the provider`s sourcing is second hand.; May 21, 2016 at 9:08 AM
guiowen said...: For god's sake, Kenhyderal, don't you realize that Malek Williams is just someone pulling your leg?; May 21, 2016 at 10:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny - you still haven't explained why Sid should be exempt from the Statute of Limitations when no one else is.

You also need to explain why he deserves other special consideration in his lawsuits.

He's your hero - defend him!; May 21, 2016 at 11:09 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny,

Besides troll this website, name one thing you have done to help Crystal.; May 21, 2016 at 11:22 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "For god's sake, Kenhyderal, don't you realize that Malek Williams is just someone pulling your leg?".............................................. The unjust treatment of Crystal Mangum is no joke, as you and Malek Williams seem to believe. Attempts to get justice for her, her children and all marginalized minority and oppressed people, living in the corrupt and unjust State of North Carolina, is not something to make sport over. "Something is rotten in the State of Denmark" - Marcellus-Hamlet- Act 1, Scene 4- William Shakespeare. I suggest you stop seeking your fun at the expense of those who are hurting; May 21, 2016 at 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny,

Mangum has not been treated unjustly. If anything, she has been given too many breaks and far too much leeway. She belongs in prison for murdering Mr. Daye. Her conviction was just and her sentence appropriate. Troll someplace else.; May 21, 2016 at 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny hissy fit:

"The unjust treatment of Crystal Mangum is no joke".

Except there was no unjust treatment of crystal. There was the unjust treatment inflicted on the innocent men she falsely accused of raping her.; May 21, 2016 at 1:59 PM
Beverly Boykin said...: Up yours, douchebag.; May 21, 2016 at 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: hissy fitseems to think reading wikipedia and google answers is all that is needed to be a medical expert.; May 21, 2016 at 3:30 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Nobody thinks Crystal's situation is a joke. Many of us think you're a joke. That's why someone using the name Malek Williams pokes fun at you.; May 21, 2016 at 3:32 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny opines: I suggest you stop seeking your fun at the expense of those who are hurting.

I suggest that you follow your own advice.

A number of commenters make bona fide attempts to give Sidney honest advice. Although Sidney may be well-intentioned, Crystal is not well served by his efforts that have absolutely no chance of success. Similarly, she is not well served by his constant proclamations of her imminent release and exoneration, none of which proclamations have any basis in fact. Crystal would be well served by an honest analysis of the law that governs her case. Both you and Sidney refuse to provide an analysis of case law that supports your conclusions. Without an honest analysis, as you know, there is no chance of a new trial, let alone release and exoneration.

Your participation on this board is limited to trolling. You troll most of the commenters with your statements of superficial support for Crystal (e.g., she was not a prostitute; she was raped by mystery rapists). Most egregiously, you troll Sidney, making him believe that his efforts are worthwhile. In leading Sidney on, you take advantage of Crystal, causing her to rely foolishly on a person who is absolutely clueless. No honest friend of Crystal would imply that she should rely on Sidney for her salvation.

Shame on you.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 21, 2016 at 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: I wonder what hissy fit thinks of the wikipedia article on the Duke rape hoax and all its documentation that it was a hoax.; May 21, 2016 at 5:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny

Who's your daddy?; May 21, 2016 at 8:03 PM
kenhyderal said...: To Anonymous at 11:22 AM and JSwift @ 4:09 PM: The most important thing I did for Crystal was to introduce her to Dr. Sidney Harr, someone there on the scene, who is a passionate seeker of justice for the disadvantaged and for the oppressed; May 21, 2016 at 8:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: I suggest that you follow your own advice"....................................... For me, defending Crystal and her children is not an exercise in fun, it's my duty as a friend. For all of you here, Crystal Mangum is only a caricature, created by The Duke Lacrosse Players, their Legal Team and their powerful and connected defenders. For those of us who know her, she is a person of quality, kindness and integrity. Learn the truth. Don't be taken in by the metanarrative.; May 21, 2016 at 8:56 PM
Anonymous said...: For me, defending Crystal and her children is not an exercise in fun, it's my duty as a friend. For all of you here, Crystal Mangum is only a caricature, created by The Duke Lacrosse Players, their Legal Team and their powerful and connected defenders. For those of us who know her, she is a person of quality, kindness and integrity. Learn the truth. Don't be taken in by the metanarrative.

Malek Williams
Hillside H. S. class of '96; May 21, 2016 at 10:02 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny claims: The most important thing I did for Crystal was to introduce her to Dr. Sidney Harr.

If this is true, then you have done more to hurt her than anyone except Sidney.

Shame on you.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 22, 2016 at 1:25 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny hissy fit:

"To Anonymous at 11:22 AM and JSwift @ 4:09 PM: The most important thing I did for Crystal was to introduce her to Dr. Sidney Harr, someone there on the scene, who is a passionate seeker of justice for the disadvantaged and for the oppressed".

Except harr is a seeker of justice for no one. He is a seeker of attention for harr, nothing more.; May 22, 2016 at 2:35 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny hissy fit:

"For all of you here, Crystal Mangum is only a caricature, created by The Duke Lacrosse Players, their Legal Team and their powerful and connected defenders."

An example of kenny hissy fit buying into a hissy fit type of meta narrative, i.e. a belief in something which is not there.

The Lacrosse players and their attorneys never personally attacked crysta, physically or verballyl. crystal attacked the Lacrosse players when she lied about being raped, lied about members of the Lacrosse team of raping her.

I remind the readership that hissy fit(who got his legal "expertise" by reading sources like Wikipedia and Google answers, the same way he got his medical expertise) has yet to offer any hard evidence that crystal was raped.

kenny hissy fit and harr are trying to get a murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.; May 22, 2016 at 2:40 AM
Anonymous said...: from kenny hissy fit:

"For those of us who know [crystal], she is a person of quality, kindness and integrity. Learn the truth. Don't be taken in by the metanarrative."

Someone who falsely accuses men of raping her, who kills her boyfriend, is hardly "a person of quality, kindness and integrity".

Againl a hissy fit metanarrative is the belief in something which is not there. hissy fit is someone who believes in something which is not there.; May 22, 2016 at 3:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 25 days.

You have 224 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 29 days since April 23rd, 68 days since the Ides of March and 3,263 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 22, 2016 at 4:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Crystal's lawyers were fighting for her as well - you and Sid just don't want to admit it. As has been repeatedly explained - Duke was not on trial, and self-defense was the only way for Crystal to get a Not Guilty. Anything at Duke was only manslaughter v murder - Sid wanted Crystal to be a convicted felon by not doing anything to justify the stabbing. Crystal's attorneys wanted her to be not guilty.

And, you yourself have noted that self-defense was argued at trial, you just disagree with the jury.

Sid is a joke, and you are even more pathetic - he's only abusing Crystal, you are abusing both, and taking advantage of clearly troubled mentally ill individuals for your own kicks.; May 22, 2016 at 5:29 AM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said...
"Oh my God! Kenhyderal got information from Wikipedia and Google Answers and posted it without sourcing it. Scandalous! Meanwhile, Malek Williams and Beverly Boykin seem to have complete license to cut and past old posts from Dr. Harr and myself with impunity and get nary a word of criticism from sanctimonious critics."

May 21, 2016 at 9:08 AM

As far as I can tell, no one who reads this blog gives a crap about your cutting and pasting. However, a number of times, it has been you who acted sanctimoniously with your denials of having engaged in this behavior. Your responses reinforce your general lack of credibility. Yet, you continue to act surprised when your stories about Kilgo and mystery rapists are dismissed as laughable and you are labeled a troll. The fact is everyone who posts at this blog, other than Sid, recognizes you for what you are.; May 22, 2016 at 8:18 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "I remind the readership that hissy fit(who got his legal "expertise" by reading sources like Wikipedia and Google answers, the same way he got his medical expertise) has yet to offer any hard evidence that crystal was raped"..........................The evidence was present. It was given, to create doubt, alternate explanations. Eg. The unidentified DNA, extracted from sperm was explained by the unsubstantiated and slanderous "suggestion" that Crystal engaged in prostitution. The unidentified fluid present on Crystal and assumed at Duke to be semen was explained away as a "probable" yeast infection. The agent that incapacitated Crystal was assumed to be 2 beers and a muscle relaxant taken hours before but the dregs of the drink presented to her upon her arrival was never analyzed for a date rape drug. The evidence given that she arrived unimpaired was dismissed and it was 'assumed' the claim, by those who were suspects, that she arrived impaired was accepted.; May 22, 2016 at 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Troll,

The Anonymous poster asked for "hard evidence" not evidence "to create doubt, alternate explanations." Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan did not conduct a bona fide investigation of any of what you call "evidence" because they did not believe Crystal was raped. Otherwise, you have to believe they were all mind-numbingly stupid.; May 22, 2016 at 9:24 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

It is indisputable that Mangum lied about being raped. It is equally clear that she was a prostitute (or escort, if you prefer that term; they are synonymous). Mangum was working as a prostitute in the days preceding the lacrosse party. That is why she had semen in and around her vagina, anus and undergarments from multiple, unidentified males. Mangum also mixed alcohol and prescription meds on the night of the lacrosse party. Only a troll would dispute those facts.

More importantly, those facts (and they are facts) have nothing to do with whether or not Mangum is guilty of murdering Mr. Daye, or what her sentence should be. The fact that you continue to argue irrelevant points in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary is further proof you are a troll, as well as a liar. It is why no one takes you, or anything you have to say, seriously. It makes you deserving of ridicule.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to start acting seriously. You need to straighten up and start flying right if you expect anyone here to do anything but continue to point and laugh at you and your very low grade trolling.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 22, 2016 at 9:40 AM
JSwift said...: Abe advises Kenny: If you want to be taken seriously, you need to start acting seriously.

I think that it is clear that Kenny does not care whether he is taken seriously. He is content to troll this website, advancing preposterous theories that are widely ridiculed, to make fun of Sidney by pretending to agree with his activities, to pretend to support Crystal and to sidetrack any serious discussion. On this thread, Kenny has succeeded completely. Rather than continuing to discus Sidney's strategy for his Rule 11 hearing, Kenny has succeeded in making the discussion all about him.

Kenny wins again. Well done.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 22, 2016 at 2:00 PM
kenhyderal said...: Abe said: "those facts (and they are facts)".......................... Abe you don't get to declare what are facts. The source of the DNA is speculation on your part and has no validity My opinion of it's source is based on what Crystal told me and upon her statement given to the Police of her consensual sexual history. Crystal worked for a legitimate Escort Agency and the bookings she was given were for erotic entertaining. It's simply libelous speculation on your part that she engaged in prostitution. Where are YOUR facts. Here is a fact; DNA was found. I speculate that it came from a rape you speculate that it came from prostitution; May 22, 2016 at 3:14 PM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: "On this thread, Kenny has succeeded completely. Rather than continuing to discus Sidney's strategy for his Rule 11 hearing, Kenny has succeeded in making the discussion all about him"....................................................Wrong again. This thread was hijacked by a gratuitous ad hominem attack on me May 17 at 4:20 PM. Unlike Dr. Harr I don't "turn the other cheek".That's when the rest of you started "piling on".; May 22, 2016 at 3:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny is still pathetic.; May 22, 2016 at 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny hissy fit:

"Here is a fact; DNA was found. I speculate that it came from a rape"

However you have never provided any proof,any evidence that a rape ever happened.; May 22, 2016 at 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny hissy fit:

"This thread was hijacked by a gratuitous ad hominem attack on me May 17 at 4:20 PM."

What has said comment have to do with the fact that there was and is no evidence crystal was ever raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

"Unlike Dr. Harr I don't "turn the other cheek"

And like harr the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty certification, tou provide absolutely no evidence, absolutely no proof crystal was ever raped.; May 22, 2016 at 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...: keny hissy fit:

What you say, that you do not "turn the other cheek", means only that you hurl popcorn at others from a range of 500 yards and believe you intimidate those others.

And you provide no proof that crystal was ever raped.; May 22, 2016 at 4:45 PM
Beverly Boykin said...: Kenny, you are a sad, little troll. Don't you have anything better to do with your time?; May 22, 2016 at 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………; May 22, 2016 at 6:42 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anpnymous said" Someone who falsely accuses men of raping her, who kills her boyfriend, is hardly "a person of quality, kindness and integrity"........................ It has not been proven that Crystal's accusation is false. For those she accused there is not sufficient evidence to get a conviction mainly because of a totally incompetent police investigation. Crystal killed Daye in self defense something readily apparent but thanks to a totally incompetent performance by Meir this defense did not prevail; May 22, 2016 at 9:44 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny hissy fit:

"Dr. Anpnymous said" Someone who falsely accuses men of raping her, who kills her boyfriend, is hardly "a person of quality, kindness and integrity"........................ It has not been proven that Crystal's accusation is false."

No evidence at all that she was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006 does prove beyond any and all doubt that she was not raped, that she lied about being raped.

"For those she accused there is not sufficient evidence to get a conviction"

What evidence? There was NO evidence.

"mainly because of a totally incompetent police investigation."

Again, explain why the investigation was botched and who btched it nifong controlled the police investigation. nifong had custody of the DNA evidence. Rather than idenify the men the DNA matched, nifong concealed it, contrary to the lie hissy fit tried to promulgate. nifong wanted to convict members of the Lacrosse team.

Crystal killed Daye in self defense, something readily apparent"

No she didn't. That was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

"but thanks to a totally incompetent performance by Meir this defense did not prevail"

That is a fabrication by you, just like kilgo's anonymous lacrosee player friend.; May 23, 2016 at 2:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 24 days.

You have 223 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 30 days since April 23rd, 69 days since the Ides of March and 3,264 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 23, 2016 at 2:56 AM
Anonymous said...: More for hissy fit:

You rant and rave about the botched police investigation. Here is more speculation for you.

nifong was heavily committed to convicting members of the lacrosse team.

If nifong had identified who had left their DNA on crystal, and those men were men with whom she had contact prior to the Lacrosse party via the escort service for which she worked, or via some other mechanism, it would have proven that crystal had not been raped at the lacrosse party.

So why did nifong conceal the dna evidence instead od tracing it back to the source?

The most credible explanation is, nifong knew crystal had not been raped at the lacrosse party.

What is your explanation why the investigation was botched and the sources of the dna evidence were not identified. You have never offered one.; May 23, 2016 at 3:03 AM
Anonymous said...: hey hissy fit

Let's have an answers.

Who botched the police investigation, and why did he botch it?

You like to rant and rave, but you are totally unwilling to explain how and why.; May 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey hissy fit:

Explain this:

crystal alleges she was raped. Male dna is found on her rape kit. nifong has custody of the dna evidence. He makes no attempt to identify the males who left the DNA. He has indicted and charged with the crime men whose DNA does not match the DNA found on crystal.

Again, while you are heavily into guilt presumption, you are not so keen on understanding the facts.

Why?; May 23, 2016 at 3:59 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny opines: It has not been proven that Crystal's accusation is false.

This statement is demonstrably false. Crystal's specific accusation has indeed been proven to be false. Kenny knows that his statement is false.

Crystal alleged that three men raped her vaginally, anally and orally. She identified her alleged rapists. She specifically alleged that the rapists ejaculated and did not use condoms. Indeed, she alleged that after having been forced to perform oral sex, she spit out the ejaculate onto the floor. She was examined within hours. The SANE exam found no DNA that matched her alleged rapists.

The failure to find DNA that matched the three specific individuals she accused of raping her proved beyond all doubt that those three individuals did not rape Crystal, ejaculating without condoms, as she had alleged. Her specific allegation thus was proven false.

Kenny, you are a liar.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 23, 2016 at 4:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Other than disagreeing with the Jury - you have never identified anything Meier should have/could have done differently on arguing self-defense. He said Daye was drunk; said it was a jealous rage when Daye saw her talking to the officer; noted that she went into a locked bathroom to call for help when Daye kicked in the door and drug her out by her hair; and let Crystal tell her story.

What more could he have done? It seems to me the problem was Crystal's story was inconsistent with the physical evidence, and she changed it a few times on the stand.

What would you have done differently for self-defense?; May 23, 2016 at 4:39 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny hissy fit:

"It has not been proven that Crystal's accusation is false."

Meaningless statement.

The state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that cryetal's accusations were true. There was no evidence her allegations were true.

Another iteration of kenny holding up a straw fisherman with a red herring, trying to duck admitting he has provided no evidence that crystal told the truth.

hissy fit says he does not turn the other cheek. Maybe he is right. What he does is try to duck and hide so no one can strike him in the cheek with the truth. Since he tries to avoid getting hit in the cheek with the truth, he really can't turn thee other cheek.; May 23, 2016 at 5:05 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal on May 21, 2016 at 9:08 AM wrote: "Oh my God! Kenhyderal got information from Wikipedia and Google Answers and posted it without sourcing it."

I'm looking for a word...what is it...oh yes, plagiarism. The taking of someone else's work and passing it off as your own - Merriam Webster. Had you sourced your cutting and pasting, it would have been fine. Instead, you attempted to pass others work off as yours. If you wonder why people don't take you seriously, that might be the answer.

Walt-in-Durham; May 23, 2016 at 5:42 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 23, 2016 at 8:43 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said : "Instead, you attempted to pass others work off as yours"...................... No I do not. The examples cited can not, in any meaningful respect, be classed as plagiarism. Because I don't buy into AG Cooper's proclamation on innocence and I publicly express that skepticism, this triggers the knee-jerk response from Duke Lacrosse Team supporters; attempt to destroy the credibility of anyone who would dare say "J'accuse"- Émile Zola; May 23, 2016 at 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: from kenny hissy fit:

"Because I don't buy into AG Cooper's proclamation on innocence and I publicly express that skepticism, this triggers the knee-jerk response from Duke Lacrosse Team supporters; attempt to destroy the credibility of anyone who would dare say "J'accuse"- Émile Zola".

BULLSHIT!!!! Nothing more.

In the face of absolutely no evidence that a rape was ever perpetrayed, you still insist it was, by Caucasian men. That makes you not a skeptic but a guilt presuming racist.

I challenge you again to answer. Who directed the police investigation of the alleged rape?Who had custody of the DNA evidence recovered from crystal. Who made zero attempt to identify the sources of that DNA? Why did he make zero attempt to identify the sources of that DNA?; May 23, 2016 at 8:55 AM
guiowen said...: Anonymous 8:55,
Please don't ask Kenny such tough questions. He can't afford to fight with Sidney (as he would if he blamed Mike Nifong for the poor investigation).; May 23, 2016 at 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: But, G, wouldn't it demonstrate Nifongian courage if Kenny were willing to stand up for what he believed in, rather than just catering to Sid's whims?; May 23, 2016 at 9:41 AM
guiowen said...: Who said Kenny had Nifongian courage?; May 23, 2016 at 10:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: " Who directed the police investigation of the alleged rape?Who had custody of the DNA evidence recovered from crystal. Who made zero attempt to identify the sources of that DNA? Why did he make zero attempt to identify the sources of that DNA?" ........................................DA Nifong admitted to making mistakes early on. He still believed he could prosecute the three for sexual assault, kidnapping and theft without their DNA being found. When he recused himself because of his problems with the Law Society the real investigation ended. Crystal feels DA Nifong was her ally in the matter of obtaining justice for her.; May 23, 2016 at 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Troll on, kenny, troll on!; May 23, 2016 at 10:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny still won't explain why the Statute of Limitations shouldn't apply to Sid.

You keep encouraging him in his lawsuit - you must have a reason.; May 23, 2016 at 10:38 AM
The Rectumfinder said...: <>

Kenny, you better turn your other ASS CHEEK! Because when I get finished reaming Sidney's ass, I'm coming for yours! I am the RECTUMFINDER (and a lay acrobat).; May 23, 2016 at 11:11 AM
The Rectumfinder said...: Kenny sez: "Unlike Dr. Harr I don't "turn the other cheek"."

Kenny, you better turn your other ASS CHEEK! Because when I get finished reaming Sidney's ass, I'm coming for yours! I am the RECTUMFINDER (and a lay acrobat).; May 23, 2016 at 11:12 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny hissy fit"

"Dr. Anonymous said: " Who directed the police investigation of the alleged rape?Who had custody of the DNA evidence recovered from crystal. Who made zero attempt to identify the sources of that DNA? Why did he make zero attempt to identify the sources of that DNA?" ........................................DA Nifong admitted to making mistakes early on."

hissy fit dodges answering. nifong NEVER admitted to making mistakes early on. An admission to making mistakes would have been not filing any charges once the DNA results from the state crime lab came back.

"He still believed he could prosecute the three for sexual assault, kidnapping and theft without their DNA being found."

Then why did he send the rape kit materials to DNA Security after te State Crime Lab reported that DNA from no Lacrosse player was found? nifong quite obviously was still looking for DNA evidence. Th DNA evidence he got did not match the DNA of the people he wanted to prosecute. So, hissy fit, ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF DUCKING111 Why did nifong conceal the evidence instead of identifying the sources?

"When he recused himself because of his problems with the Law Society the real investigation ended."
You are incredibly stupid, deluded and unsuccessfully elusive. The question you are trying to dodge is, why did nifong try to conceal the DNA evidence he found rater than identify the sources. You yourself have admitted that one aspect of the botched investigation was that the sources of the DNA evidence were never identified.

"Crystal feels DA Nifong was her ally in the matter of obtaining justice for her."

If he was, then the question is, WHY DID HE CONCEAL THE DNA EVIDENCE RATHER THAN IDENTIFY THE SOURCES. The NTO was obtained because, according to the DA's office, the DNA evidence obtained would identify the perpetrators and exonerate the innocent. If nifong were truly interested in justice for crystal he would have identified the sources of the DNA evidence.

Another thing for you to consider. If nifong were truly interested in getting justice for crystal, why did he ignore her for almost 9 months. It is a matter of public record that no one from nifong's office ever interviewed crystal until december of 2006.

And you are trying to dodge this issue, that in that interview crystal could not recall being penetrated, which is an essential element of rape in North Carolina.

So stop the lie, that nifong believed he could convict them of sexual assault without DNA evidence. Nifong came out in public and said he could convict them without DNA evidence. From a Durham in Wonderland blog QUOTING nifong. "“DNA results,” said Mike Nifong on April 11, “can often be helpful, but, you know, I’ve been doing this for a long time, and most of the years I’ve been doing this, we didn’t have DNA. We had to deal with sexual assault cases the good old-fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them.” William Anderson, citing nifong's appearance at NCCU' "Nifong himself declared on April 11, 2006, at an anti-lacrosse team rally at North Carolina Central University, the lack of DNA simply meant, "They left nothing behind."

nifong set out to convict them of rape. He dropped the rape charge after crystal admitted she had not been raped.

You once again show you are either willfully ignorant or you are a liar.; May 23, 2016 at 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Revision:

kenny hissy fit"

"Dr. Anonymous said: " Who directed the police investigation of the alleged rape?Who had custody of the DNA evidence recovered from crystal. Who made zero attempt to identify the sources of that DNA? Why did he make zero attempt to identify the sources of that DNA?" ........................................DA Nifong admitted to making mistakes early on."

hissy fit dodges answering. nifong NEVER admitted to making mistakes early on. An admission to making mistakes would have been not filing any charges once the DNA results from the state crime lab came back.

"He still believed he could prosecute the three for sexual assault, kidnapping and theft without their DNA being found."

Then why did he send the rape kit materials to DNA Security after the State Crime Lab reported that DNA from no Lacrosse player was found? nifong quite obviously was still looking for DNA evidence. Th DNA evidence he got did not match the DNA of the people he wanted to prosecute. So, hissy fit, ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF DUCKING!!! Why did nifong conceal the evidence instead of identifying the sources?

"When he recused himself because of his problems with the Law Society the real investigation ended."

You are incredibly stupid, deluded and unsuccessfully elusive. The question you are trying to dodge is, why did nifong try to conceal the DNA evidence he found rather than identify the sources. You yourself have admitted that one aspect of the botched investigation was that the sources of the DNA evidence were never identified.

"Crystal feels DA Nifong was her ally in the matter of obtaining justice for her."

If he was, then the question is, WHY DID HE CONCEAL THE DNA EVIDENCE RATHER THAN IDENTIFY THE SOURCES. The NTO was obtained because, according to the DA's office, the DNA evidence obtained would identify the perpetrators and exonerate the innocent. If nifong were truly interested in justice for crystal he would have identified the sources of the DNA evidence.

Another thing for you to consider. If nifong were truly interested in getting justice for crystal, why did he ignore her for almost 9 months. It is a matter of public record that no one from nifong's office ever interviewed crystal until december of 2006.

And you are trying to dodge this issue, that in that interview crystal could not recall being penetrated, which is an essential element of rape in North Carolina.

So stop the lie, that nifong believed he could convict them of sexual assault without DNA evidence. Nifong came out in public and said he could convict them without DNA evidence. From a Durham in Wonderland blog QUOTING nifong. "“DNA results,” said Mike Nifong on April 11, “can often be helpful, but, you know, I’ve been doing this for a long time, and most of the years I’ve been doing this, we didn’t have DNA. We had to deal with sexual assault cases the good old-fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them.” William Anderson, citing nifong's appearance at NCCU' "Nifong himself declared on April 11, 2006, at an anti-lacrosse team rally at North Carolina Central University, the lack of DNA simply meant, "They left nothing behind."

Right from the start, nifong set out to convict them of rape WITHOUT ANY DNA EVIDENCE. He dropped the rape charge after crystal admitted she had not been raped.

You once again show you are either willfully ignorant or you are a liar.

Sorry for the typos in the first version.; May 23, 2016 at 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny hissy fit:

"When he recused himself because of his problems with the Law Society the real investigation ended."

nifong had problems with the North Carolina State Bar, the Governmental agency which regulates the practice of law, not a legal society.; May 23, 2016 at 11:53 AM
The Great Kilgo said...: Ubes is having another one of his liestopper crank meltdowns.

Spin Ubes Spin

Quack

Quack

Quack; May 23, 2016 at 7:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Another harr/hissy fit anonymous post.; May 24, 2016 at 2:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You will be standing tall before the man in 23 days.

You have 222 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 31 days since April 23rd, 70 days since the Ides of March and 3,265 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 24, 2016 at 3:00 AM
Anonymous said...: hissy fit thinks he is intimidating when he tosses popcorn at people from a range of 500yards.; May 24, 2016 at 5:33 AM
Anonymous said...: from hissy fit:

"When he recused himself because of his problems with the Law Society the real investigation ended."

In hissy fit's words, it was a BOTCHED investigation. hissy fit rants and raves that failure to identify the sources of the DNA evidence was why the investigation was botched.

hissy fit refuses to confront the issue, nifong, who made no attempt to interview the complaining witness for almost 9 months and who concealed the DNA evidence found on crystal rather than identify the sources, led the investigation. He says nifong was acting in the interest of crystal.

Does hissy fit really believe he can think?; May 24, 2016 at 5:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

Just wanted to inform you that I am busy working on a sharlog that will be extremely important, I feel, in securing the release and exoneration of Ms. Mangum. I expect to have it completed no later than Wednesday... hopefully by today. That is the reason that I have been not actively involved in replying to commenters... but it appears that kenhyderal is doing his usual wonderful job in advocating for Crystal.

As I may have said previously, my target month, at this time, for Mangum's release and exoneration is June, 2016. No guarantees, but I believe that significant progress will be made if not complete achievement of the main objectives... Crystal's release and exoneration.

As you were.; May 24, 2016 at 5:59 AM
Anonymous said...: from harr:

"Just wanted to inform you that I am busy working on a sharlog that will be extremely important, I feel, in securing the release and exoneration of Ms. Mangum. I expect to have it completed no later than Wednesday... hopefully by today. That is the reason that I have been not actively involved in replying to commenters..."

harr has never worked on anything of any importance

"but it appears that kenhyderal is doing his usual wonderful job in advocating for Crystal."

harr again shows he is deluded.

"As I may have said previously, my target month, at this time, for Mangum's release and exoneration is June, 2016. No guarantees, but I believe that significant progress will be made if not complete achievement of the main objectives... Crystal's release and exoneration."

harr has been saying for years he has been making progress in securing crystal's release nd exoneration. It is res ipsa loquitur he has not.; May 24, 2016 at 6:14 AM
Anonymous said...: What other lies is harr going to ply us with?; May 24, 2016 at 6:16 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

You now have 7 days until your brief for your Rule 11 hearing is due. I hope that you are making progress and that your sharlog has not distracted you. As a reminder, the Court Order required that a brief must include "citations to relevant cases or other legal authority."

Assume the hearing will proceed as scheduled on June 16.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 24, 2016 at 6:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Again, Sid, absent a Judge ruling on a filed Motion, or the Governor issuing a Pardon - and neither have been applied for - nothing can happen for Crystal in June or anytime soon.

The fact you keep lying to her (and us) and saying her release is at hand, when nothing you are doing can achieve that goal - the only 2 ways are what I just noted, as has repeatedly been explained to you (and your Federal Lawsuit in Wake can't do it - that Judge has no jurisdiction) - is proof you are either seriously mentally ill/delusional, or you are intentionally emotionally abusing Crystal.

And, Kenny just proves he's an abuser of both of you with the games he plays here. He won't answer any real questions - he's manipulating you.; May 24, 2016 at 8:31 AM
Lance The Intern said...: Wow....I just posted a comment here regarding KC Johnson's new blog site. 5 minutes later the comment is gone.

Anyway, the blog is primarily about issues with "contemporary academics", but as always, provides an entertaining and truly enlightening read.

You can find it here.

Back to lurk mode.; May 24, 2016 at 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: About time for another round of harr/hissy fit anonymous comments; May 24, 2016 at 3:48 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 743 Newer› Newest»

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Lawsuit against Wake County D.A. Lorrin Freeman

743 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me