justice4nifong: Fix the Court: "Harr accosted Justice Breyer"

Friday, July 22, 2016

Fix the Court: "Harr accosted Justice Breyer"

721 comments:

1 – 200 of 721 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: harr posts more clap trap. He is ranting and raving about the Supereme Court refusing to hear his appeal over his frivolous, non meritorious lawsuit against Duke.

HOw frustrated harr is that he could not shake down DUke for a big settlement.; July 22, 2016 at 3:15 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Hah, A Lawyer. Where did you get your law license? From a Cracker Jacks box?

Dr. Harr:

I have repeatedly made predictions on this blog about the outcome of your various legal proceedings. So far, they have all turned out to be correct.

You, on the other hand, have made countless predictions which have proven to be false (that you would humiliate the State Bar in its case against you; that the prosecution would never take Mangum's murder case to trial; that you would win your various lawsuits against Duke; that Crystal would be exonerated by March 15 or June 30; etc., etc., etc.). I will let the readers of this blog decide who has more credibility about legal matters.

Hey, A Lawyer.

True, you have been more accurate in your predictions -- to date. But there is a reason for that. You see, I made the mistake of believing that the media and those in authority would act sensibly and responsibly instead of digging in and doubling down. The fall of the High and Mighty is inevitable... but because of their intransigence, the justice that I have been touting for some time has been delayed. Justice will eventually (in the near future) will prevail.; July 22, 2016 at 3:16 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,

If you have a problem with how an elected official responds to a constituent, the recourse is in the ballot box and the election cycle, not the courts. By your logic, you can sue McCrory, Cooper, Obama, and others for not listening to you. Must the President meet with every single person who asks to meet with him? That's your argument with Freeman.

You are a sad, pathetic joke.

It is not simply a matter of an elected official not listening to me, but rather their refusal to take a report of a criminal act. The criminal act of perjury has resulted in the wrongful incarceration of an innocent person.

Most elected officials have a staff. If the district attorney herself cannot expend time to receive and respond to a report, surely one of the assistant district attorneys could. I believe it is totally unacceptable for an elected official to ignore a constituent's concerns.

An example would be a certified letter I recently sent to the acting director of the SBI, Janie Sutton. It was returned unopened with the explanation "refused." Do you believe that is the correct way to run an agency?; July 22, 2016 at 3:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
harr posts more clap trap. He is ranting and raving about the Supereme Court refusing to hear his appeal over his frivolous, non meritorious lawsuit against Duke.

HOw frustrated harr is that he could not shake down DUke for a big settlement.

You must've merely looked at the picture... with your quick response, it is obvious you never took the time to consume and digest the meaning of the sharlog. Specifically, what I find despicable is the fact that the online site "Fix the Court" accused me of accosting Justice Stephen Breyer following his interview at Duke University in April 2010... compounding the lies and misunderstanding spewed by WRAL-5 News.; July 22, 2016 at 3:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Walt, I looked at the article. Yes, I agree the Court of Appeals acted properly, and to an extent, so did the D.A. Freeman. However, Freeman should care about Crystal Mangum receiving justice as much as she did the other defendants."

I know you don't really learn well. But, for others who may not know, Freeman had nothing to do with prosecuting Crystal. She could not have. The Wake DA can only prosecute cases that arise in Wake County. Our state constitution gives her the exclusive jurisdiction to do so. But, the very same constitution prohibits her from prosecuting cases from outside Wake County. She can do nothing for Crystal as it regards the murder of Reginald Daye.

"Do you feel Freeman is justified in not talking with me or having an assistant talk with me about Mangum's case? After all, I am her constituent."

Dismiss your lawsuit against Freeman and we will talk about feelings. Until then, you have filed a frivolous lawsuit seeking to force Freeman to do something which she is prohibited from doing. That is a frivolous lawsuit and you should dismiss it.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

I am not asking D.A. Freeman to do nothing more than pass along information about a crime to the proper jurisdictional district attorney. The U.S. Attorney (under U.S. Attorney Bruce) for the Eastern District did that when I presented to his office the accusation of perjury in Mangum's case. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District wrote a letter to his counterpart in the Middle District to inform him of my concerns about criminality in Mangum's case.

There is nothing in the law books preventing Freeman from passing on information about a crime to another district attorney. That should not be so difficult... especially in the interests of justice. Not to do so is a dereliction of duty.; July 22, 2016 at 3:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 163 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 22 days since the end of June, 90 days since April 23rd, 129 days since the Ides of March and 3,324 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 22, 2016 at 4:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Response to the harr comment at July 22, 2016 at 3:30 AM:

Regardless of how you try to spin it, you are grousing because the Supreme Court did not accept your appeal regarding your frivolous lawsuit against Duke. You delude yourself into believing you are important. You are not.; July 22, 2016 at 5:06 AM
Anonymous said...: harr's comment at July 22, 2016 at 3:39 AM

"There is nothing in the law books preventing Freeman from passing on information about a crime to another district attorney. That should not be so difficult... especially in the interests of justice. Not to do so is a dereliction of duty."

Except harr is not trying to get DA Freeman to simply pass on information about a crime.

harr alleges Dr. Nichols committed perjury. harr, in his smug assumption of his importance, believes his word establishes the crime. :it doesn't.

And in any event, it is a matter of public record ow that the relief harr requested was that crystal's conviction be overturned and crystal be released. In his delusional megalomania, harr did believe he could force the Wake County DA to intervene in a case prosecuted in Durham County. harr is throwing a tantrum ovr learning how unintimidating and unimportant he is.; July 22, 2016 at 5:15 AM
Anonymous said...: harr at "July 22, 2016 at 3:25 AM

"It is not simply a matter of an elected official not listening to me, but rather their refusal to take a report of a criminal act. The criminal act of perjury has resulted in the wrongful incarceration of an innocent person."

harr has not shown either that the crime of perjury took place or that crystal is innocent. That makes the rest of his comment totally irrelevant.; July 22, 2016 at 5:18 AM
Anonymous said...: harr at July 22, 2016 at 3:16 AM

"True, you have been more accurate in your predictions -- to date. But there is a reason for that."

That reason is that A Lawyer knows what he is talking about an harr does not.

"You see, I made the mistake of believing that the media and those in authority would act sensibly and responsibly instead of digging in and doubling down. The fall of the High and Mighty is inevitable... but because of their intransigence, the justice that I have been touting for some time has been delayed. Justice will eventually (in the near future) will prevail."

harr is now trying to cover his exposed butt, left exposed when his boastful, bombastic predictions failed.; July 22, 2016 at 5:22 AM
Anonymous said...: harr, so far as your frivolous suit ab==gainst Duke, this is what I believe is your underlying motivation, and it is not only that you believed Duke would cave in and settle with you(this is based on your ridiculous belief that Duke caved in and settled with the innocent Lacrosse players):

You sent your letter to Duke announcing your intent to attend the Arwphn Breyer event. You pwxrws you qouls b greeted as and treated as a VIP. Whe you weren't you sought attention by passing out your business cards and encouraging people to visit yourweb site, which was a clear violation of Duke's non solicitation policy(remember. Duke sets policy for Duke,not you), You were told to stop. Instead of stopping you picked a fight with a security guard. Then you tried to dragoon Professor Coleman int intervening. THen you decided to sue Duke.

That is what the audio you posted revealed.; July 22, 2016 at 6:18 AM
Anonymous said...: harr lies when he claims he was never tied to the duke rape case. First, it was the Duke Rape Hoax. There was never any evidence that crystal was ever raped. harr clims there was no evidence crystal ever lied about being raped. There was never any evidence crystal told the truth.

harr's involvement in blogging is a consequence of his determination to reverse the consequences of the Duke Rape Hoax, the exposure that crystal was a false accuser and that nifong was one of the most corrupt prosecutors in NC and US history.

Had there been no Duke Rape Hoax, there would have been no Committee for Justice for Nifong,, there would have been no J4N blog, no attempts on the part of harr to portray corrupt nifong as a decent and honorable minister of justice after nifong knowingly prsecuted three innocent enfor a crime nifong knew never happened.; July 22, 2016 at 6:54 AM
Anonymous said...: harr also lies when he says that the media was aware of the discrimination direxted against harr by Duke. There was never any discrimination against harr by Dume for the media to beaware of. harr's delusions of his own importance do not add up to discrimination.; July 22, 2016 at 6:58 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I am not asking D.A. Freeman to do nothing more than pass along information about a crime to the proper jurisdictional district attorney."

No, Sid, that is not what you are asking. Your frivolous lawsuit asks that Crystal's conviction be overturned and that she be released from prison. That is very different from asking that information be passed along. As I have said before, dismiss your frivolous lawsuit and we can talk good politics.

"There is nothing in the law books preventing Freeman from passing on information about a crime to another district attorney. That should not be so difficult... especially in the interests of justice. Not to do so is a dereliction of duty."

When you start writing about duty, you run up against a problem. The District Attorney's duty is very clear. She has the exclusive duty to prosecute criminal cases that arise in her prosecutorial district. She is prohibited from prosecuting criminal cases that arise elsewhere. She cannot be derelict in her duty when you are seeking to have her do something she is prohibited from doing.

Walt-in-Durham; July 22, 2016 at 7:49 AM
Anonymous said...: harr lies when he says his lawsuit against Duke in 2011 had nothing to do with what he calls theDuke Lacrosse case(it was the Duke Lacosse Rape Hoax). harr alleged hewas targeted because of his support for da nifong, and harr has been on record that he supports nifong because he believes nifong was treated unjustlybecause of the Duke Rape Hoax. No Duk rape Hoax, no J4N activities.; July 22, 2016 at 9:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, I knew "something happened" at the Duke interview with Justice Stephen Breyer that we did not know about. Now the truth has come out and you should be happy you were not arrested.; July 22, 2016 at 9:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Double lie on the part of harr:

wRALreporters, harr claims, knew that harrr's sut aainst Duke was not about the Duke Rape Hoax. Again, would harr have even been on campus passing out J4N cards and inviting people to look up his web site if there had been no Duke Rape Hoax(what makes it a hoax was that there was no evidence the alleged rape ever occurred)?

harr claimed that WRAL wanted to keep fro the public that discrimination took place against harr, that Duke discriminated against harr because of his race and his support for nifong. harr never demonstrated Duke discriminated against him on the basis of his race and his dupport for nifong. harr's "rvidence" was, what else could it be. In other words, harr made his allegations and then claimed Duke had to disprove them.; July 22, 2016 at 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: harr's latest screed is a product of his pique, that his frivolous non meritorious suit against Due went against him, and that the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal. As in his wont, he offers no proof. He makes his allegations and says those he accuses must disprove them.; July 22, 2016 at 9:35 AM
Anonymous said...: harr is again posting the straw fisherman holding up a red herring. He is trying to divert attention away from his latest failure to make good on his bombastic boastful promises tat crystal would be exonerated and released.; July 22, 2016 at 9:38 AM
guiowen said...: So, Sidney, are you saying that FIX THE COURT is part of the conspiracy against you, Mike Nifong, and Crystal Mangum?; July 22, 2016 at 12:00 PM
A Lawyer said...: Hey, A Lawyer.

True, you have been more accurate in your predictions -- to date.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in "The Path of the Law," 10 Harvard Law Review 457 (1897), "The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law." So I suggest that you owe me an apology for suggesting that I got my law degree from a "box of Cracker Jacks."; July 22, 2016 at 12:51 PM
A Lawyer said...: There is nothing in the law books preventing Freeman from passing on information about a crime to another district attorney.

Nor is there anything in the law books requiring her to do so. And there is certainly nothing in the law books permitting a federal court to order a state district attorney to meet with a constituent. So your lawsuit is frivolous and will be dismissed. I can assure you of that with 100% certainty. If the defendants ask for sanctions, they will get them. Even if they don't ask for sanctions, it is possible (but not guaranteed) that the judge will sanction you anyway. For your own sake, I urge you to talk to your friend, Prof. Coleman, or with another lawyer, before you proceed with this lawsuit.; July 22, 2016 at 12:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 162 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 23 days since the end of June, 91 days since April 23rd, 130 days since the Ides of March and 3,325 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 23, 2016 at 5:00 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Hey, A Lawyer.

True, you have been more accurate in your predictions -- to date.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in "The Path of the Law," 10 Harvard Law Review 457 (1897), "The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law." So I suggest that you owe me an apology for suggesting that I got my law degree from a "box of Cracker Jacks."

Ha-hah. Hey, A Lawyer, lighten up. Shirley you can't be serious. I know Cracker Jacks does not issue licenses to practice law, and you should have known that I said that in jest. Now, in case you didn't, and I really hurt your feelings, let me know, and I will give you a sincere, good-faith apology.; July 23, 2016 at 5:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
So, Sidney, are you saying that FIX THE COURT is part of the conspiracy against you, Mike Nifong, and Crystal Mangum?

gui, mon ami, greetings and salutations.

It is possible that Fix-the-Court may have placed its statement about me in collusion with WRAL-5 News to discredit me... I just don't have the evidence to say for sure. What I do believe is that it was told by someone at WRAL that I "accosted" Justice Stephen Breyer as the reason for my being kicked off campus. I do not believe that Fix-the-Court conjured that up on its own and without being misled by someone with regards to it.

My question for you (and other commenters) is, what do you think?

First of all, do you believe that I accosted the justice?

This is the first time this had been mentioned. Keep in mind that the flimsy reason given by Duke University earlier was that I had been "repeatedly soliciting its students and staff in violation of its anti-solicitation policy."; July 23, 2016 at 5:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney, I knew "something happened" at the Duke interview with Justice Stephen Breyer that we did not know about. Now the truth has come out and you should be happy you were not arrested.

If you believe that I accosted Justice Breyer in April 2010, can you explain why the security guard, Duke University, and WRAL-5 (the only media to even write about the case... albeit once and more than six years after the incident) never mentioned it?

First of all, why should I accost Justice Breyer, one of the most liberal justices at the Supreme Court. I have nothing but profound admiration for him. Clearly, it makes absolutely no sense for me to accost him.; July 23, 2016 at 5:46 AM
Anonymous said...: harr to a lawyer:

"
Ha-hah. Hey, A Lawyer, lighten up. Shirley you can't be serious. I know Cracker Jacks does not issue licenses to practice law, and you should have known that I said that in jest. Now, in case you didn't, and I really hurt your feelings, let me know, and I will give you a sincere, good-faith apology."

harr was obviously, deliberately directing a bit of malice at A Lawyer, no matter how stupidly he tries to sin it.; July 23, 2016 at 6:40 AM
Anonymous said...: harr to his readersP(on the Justice Breter issue):

"My question for you (and other commenters) is, what do you think?"

I think harr is grousing that the Supreme Court would not hear his appeal of thr dismissal of his frivolous, non meritorious lawsuit against Duke, and again trying to convince the public that Dukr singled him out for an attack. harr can not live with the reality that no one would consider him important enough to single out for anything.; July 23, 2016 at 6:45 AM
Anonymous said...: harr on his frivolous,non meritorious lawsuit against Duke:

"This is the first time this had been mentioned. Keep in mind that the flimsy reason given by Duke University earlier was that I had been "repeatedly soliciting its students and staff in violation of its anti-solicitation policy."

harr admitted he was passing out his busibess cards and urging people to visit his wab site. Whether harr likes it or not, he was violating Duke's non solicitationpolicy. I became an incident when harr picked a fight with a security guard when he was told to stop. That is what was confirmed by the audio clip he posted.; July 23, 2016 at 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...: This whole thing with WRAL is happening because harr is p---ed that his bombastic boasts that he would have crystal's conviction overturned have come to naught. He is trying to distract attention away from his latest and most abject failure.; July 23, 2016 at 7:19 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anti-solicitation policies at most Universities including I'm sure at Duke are there to protect the staff and students from un-wanted marketing. Using this policy to justify the eviction of someone for handing out a business card containing a web-address is a complete stretch. Any reasonable person can see that this is simply a feeble excuse for what was done to Dr.Harr; not for soliciting but because of his reputation for promoting ideas inimical to their agenda. I wager that no poster, here, other then Dr.Harr, would be tossed off Duke or any other University Campus for the same actions; July 23, 2016 at 9:06 AM
Anonymous said...: clap trap from hissy fit:

"Anti-solicitation policies at most Universities including I'm sure at Duke are there to protect the staff and students from un-wanted marketing. Using this policy to justify the eviction of someone for handing out a business card containing a web-address is a complete stretch. Any reasonable person can see that this is simply a feeble excuse for what was done to Dr.Harr; not for soliciting but because of his reputation for promoting ideas inimical to their agenda. I wager that no poster, here, other then Dr.Harr, would be tossed off Duke or any other University Campus for the same actions"

Tghe whole statement is irrelevant and meaningless. hissy fit refers to what any reasonable person would see.

hissy fit is not a reasonable person, and therefore incapable of knowing how a reasonable person would view a situation.

A reasonable person does not advocate for the conviction of innocent men for a crime, a rape, which never happened, which was a fabrication by a false accuser who was already a convicted criminal when she fabricated her story of rape.; July 23, 2016 at 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: hissy fit's latest clap trap presumes a fact not at all in evidence, that any institution like Duke would consider harr worth the effort to target him for anything.

Maybe this latest piece of clap trap is just harr posting under another name trying to create the illusion that he has support.; July 23, 2016 at 10:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Let's go over this again. harr began boasting some weeks ago that he would have crystal exonerated and freed in a short time. harr believed he could intimidate DA Freeman and coerce her into intervening on behalf of crystal, something she is not legally permitted to do. That is not going to happen. Now harr is throwing a tantrum because he has found out, yet again, that harr is not as great, not as intimidating, not as awesome as harr believes he is.; July 23, 2016 at 10:32 AM
Anonymous said...: time for some harr/hissy fit/kilgo anonymous impotent temper tantrums; July 23, 2016 at 12:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man-troll kenhyderal?; July 23, 2016 at 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: They should have just grouped you in with the 3 other mentally unstable and called it good.; July 23, 2016 at 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: When will we get the next round of harr/hissy fit a2nonymous posts?; July 23, 2016 at 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: When will we get the next round of harr/hissy fit a2nonymous posts?; July 23, 2016 at 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: When will we get the next round of harr/hissy fit a2nonymous posts?; July 23, 2016 at 5:29 PM
Anonymous said...: When will we get the next round of harr/hissy fit a2nonymous posts?; July 23, 2016 at 5:29 PM
Anonymous said...: When will we get the next round of harr/hissy fit a2nonymous posts?; July 23, 2016 at 5:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't feel bad, A Lawyer. Sid thinks that because his doctor's license came out of a Cracker Jack box, every other professionals does as well.; July 23, 2016 at 6:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 161 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 24 days since the end of June, 92 days since April 23rd, 131 days since the Ides of March and 3,326 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 24, 2016 at 4:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Now Sid has a new distraction he can blame for his delays in Crystal - the conspiracy goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court ...

I suspect the "anti-solicitation" was Sid trying to get close to Breyer and give him one of his cards.

Sid, I assume the failure of Harr III, Freeman Lawsuit, and the Federal MAR puts you back at square 1 with Mangum, or do you have other things int he works that are supposed to lead to her immediate exoneration and release?

You do know that until you actually file something in Durham County, nothing can happen right? That's the only County that can touch the trial/conviction outside of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, and they've ruled, and denied.; July 24, 2016 at 5:17 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
They should have just grouped you in with the 3 other mentally unstable and called it good.

Hah. So funny I almost forgot to laugh.

Problem with grouping me with three other mentally unstables would be that I would not fit... as I am extremely mentally stable.; July 24, 2016 at 6:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
harr on his frivolous,non meritorious lawsuit against Duke:

"This is the first time this had been mentioned. Keep in mind that the flimsy reason given by Duke University earlier was that I had been "repeatedly soliciting its students and staff in violation of its anti-solicitation policy."

harr admitted he was passing out his busibess cards and urging people to visit his wab site. Whether harr likes it or not, he was violating Duke's non solicitation policy. I became an incident when harr picked a fight with a security guard when he was told to stop. That is what was confirmed by the audio clip he posted.

The truth is obviously foreign to you. Fact is that i did pass my business card to about a half dozen people while awaiting for the interview to begin. At the conclusion of the interview with Breyer, I was heading to the building exit (not accosting Justice Breyer) when an AP reporter approached me and started asking for my opinions of the event. After discussing it, we exchanged business cards and I again headed for the exit. That is when the security guard intercepted me on the way out of the building and began the confrontation.

Comprende?; July 24, 2016 at 6:12 AM
A Lawyer said...: Why this sudden focus on a long-ago incident, which has already spawned three failed lawsuits, all of them now dead and buried? Is it to avoid focusing on the latest, about-to-be-dismissed lawsuit against DA Freeman? Or on the attempted filing of the MAR in the wrong courthouse?

To quote Anon. at 5:17: "Sid, I assume the failure of Harr III, Freeman Lawsuit, and the Federal MAR puts you back at square 1 with Mangum, or do you have other things int he works that are supposed to lead to her immediate exoneration and release?"; July 24, 2016 at 8:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Your continued frivolous lawsuits, and refusal to learn show you are far from mentally stable. You are actually quite delusional.; July 24, 2016 at 8:48 AM
Anonymous said...: harr said:

"Problem with grouping me with three other mentally unstables would be that I would not fit... as I am extremely mentally stable."

Someone who believes a corrupt prosecutor, who knowingly prosecuted innocent men for a crime he knew never happened, acted with integrity is not mentally stable.

harr filed a lawsuit seeking the oveturning of crystal's conviction and crystal's release from prison as relief, then claimed the lawsuit had nothing to do with crystal's conviction. That is not indicative of mental stability.

harr tought he could force the Wake County DA to intervene in aa case prosecuted in Durham county. That is an indication of mental instabiiity.; July 24, 2016 at 10:32 AM
Anonymous said...: harr said:

"
The truth is obviously foreign to you." No it isn't. No matter how you try to spin it, you violated Duke's non solicitation policy and then picked a fight with a security guard.

You subsequently claimed the AP reporter was planted in the audience to identify you to the Duke powers that be so they could discriminate against you. That is an indication you are mentally unstable.

That you believe Duke considers you worth the effort to make a special effort to discriminate against you isevidence of your mental instability.; July 24, 2016 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: more for harr:

That you believed because you were a resident of Wake County and because crystal was incarcerated in a state prison in Wake County, you had a right to file a lawsuit to force the DA of Wake County to involve herself in a court case which took placr outside of Wake County, that is indicativr of mental instabiity,; July 24, 2016 at 11:03 AM
Anonymous said...: more for harr:

That you believe you could delude people into believingyour lawsuit was not about crystal is indication of mental instability.; July 24, 2016 at 11:05 AM
Anonymous said...: yet more for harr:

That you believe your suit against DA Ftreeman would ever go to trial is an indicayion of yout mental instability.; July 24, 2016 at 11:52 AM
Anonymous said...: You should sue both "Fix the Courts" and WRAL.....; July 24, 2016 at 6:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 160 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 25 days since the end of June, 93 days since April 23rd, 132 days since the Ides of March and 3,327 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 25, 2016 at 1:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man-troll kenhyderal?; July 25, 2016 at 5:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 159 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 26 days since the end of June, 94 days since April 23rd, 133 days since the Ides of March and 3,328 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 26, 2016 at 2:16 AM
Anonymous said...: It amazes me that Sid really seems to think there is some sort of conspiracy against him. It's not a vast conspiracy - it's a nothing story that they don't take time to properly vet.

They realize you are a mentally unstable joke, and they treat you as such - by ignoring you.

At least Sid's paranoia and reaction here shows that it has never been about Nifong or Crystal, but always about him.

Sid - why do you refuse to answer:

You said that Crystal's release and exoneration was imminent, so given that:
1. Harr III failed (as everyone said it would - you still won't explain why the Statute of Limitations should not apply to you, even if you had a viable lawsuit);
2. Freeman Lawsuit will fail, and can do nothing to affect her conviction and incarceration;
3. The Federal MAR will fail as it's not the proper legal filing.

So, 3 legal filings none of which will help a single bit ... what else do you have up your sleeve, or was that it? And, I'm sure now you are preparing your lawsuit against WRAL and Fix the Court, and probably Justice Breyer - so will you ask for relief for Crystal there, or will that just delay your goal of having her exonerated?; July 26, 2016 at 4:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Nothing from harr/hissy fit/kilgo in days.harr/hissy fit/kilgo must be really struggling to come up with the next round of implausible denials.; July 26, 2016 at 6:58 AM
Inconnu said...: Alors, Kenhyderal,
Veux-tu, enfin, cette information que j'ai pour toi? Oui ou non?; July 26, 2016 at 9:29 AM
guiowen said...: So, Sidney, why did Breyer recuse himself in your case?
Could it be that (back in 2010) someone told Breyer you were out of order? He would then have asked the campus guards to throw you out, with the proviso that they not tell you that they were doing so at Breyer's request. Now, obviously, he realizes his actions back then sparked this case.
This is the only plausible explanation I can come up with for his recusal.; July 26, 2016 at 2:27 PM
Anonymous said...: If you look at the Fix the Court detail charts you can see that the recusal was because Breyer is listed by name in the suit as the function Sidney was attending. So, just Breyer's name being in the suit caused the recuse I think. But, then again something happened and we do not know the full story. Now we shall see if Gabe Roth of Fix the Courts responds to Sidney's letter and sets the story straight.; July 26, 2016 at 3:47 PM
Anonymous said...: ? ? ? ? ? ?; July 26, 2016 at 6:48 PM
Anonymous said...: ?; July 26, 2016 at 6:49 PM
Anonymous said...: ?; July 26, 2016 at 6:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 158 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 27 days since the end of June, 95 days since April 23rd, 134 days since the Ides of March and 3,329 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 27, 2016 at 3:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
So, Sidney, why did Breyer recuse himself in your case?
Could it be that (back in 2010) someone told Breyer you were out of order? He would then have asked the campus guards to throw you out, with the proviso that they not tell you that they were doing so at Breyer's request. Now, obviously, he realizes his actions back then sparked this case.
This is the only plausible explanation I can come up with for his recusal.

gui, mon ami,

I think your explanation is more complicated that the reality. I believe that since the discrimination incident took place during an event in which he was the guest interviewee, he decided to eliminate any appearance of partiality by recusing himself.

In 2010, the dean and president's office staffs were alerted in a letter that I was planning to attend, but I don't believe that they involved Breyer in their intrigue. Why would Breyer ask the guard and police to throw me off campus after the event had concluded? I believe it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for Breyer to have had any involvement in my removal from campus.; July 27, 2016 at 4:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
If you look at the Fix the Court detail charts you can see that the recusal was because Breyer is listed by name in the suit as the function Sidney was attending. So, just Breyer's name being in the suit caused the recuse I think. But, then again something happened and we do not know the full story. Now we shall see if Gabe Roth of Fix the Courts responds to Sidney's letter and sets the story straight.

I will let you know as soon as I hear from Mr. Roth.

In googling my name, I accidentally came upon another article/press release dated December 18, 2015 in which Fix the Court made inaccurate statements about my case. So the July 11th article is the second, that I know of in which my discrimination case against Duke is referenced in that site.; July 27, 2016 at 4:43 AM
Anonymous said...: And, Sid now has his distraction to avoid answering the questions about his failed lawsuits and efforts to help Crystal.; July 27, 2016 at 4:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
You should sue both "Fix the Courts" and WRAL.....

Although the inaccuracies in the WRAL story were for the purpose of concealing Duke's discrimination against me, and I do find it definitely biased against me, I don't think it presents grounds for legal action. Fix the Court, on the other hand, definitely made a libelous statement by stating that I accosted the justice. It is my hope that Mr. Roth will take timely measures of rectification to assure that no legal action is taken against him.; July 27, 2016 at 4:50 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "... definitely made a libelous statement by stating that I accosted the justice."

I am sure Sid has no idea what the definition of libel is, nor is he willing to learn. However, for readers who care libel is the publication a false statement that damages someone else's reputation. The accuracy of the Fix the Court report is certainly in dispute, but there must be proof of damage. So far, Sid's reputation is for filing frivolous, vexatious and pointless litigation, making false claims and breaching confidences placed in him. I'm not sure what could be published that would harm that reputation.

Walt-in-Durham; July 27, 2016 at 6:45 AM
Anonymous said...: harr said:

"In 2010, the dean and president's office staffs were alerted in a letter that I was planning to attend, but I don't believe that they involved Breyer in their intrigue.(harr believes they conspired to discriminate against him)"

harr has not established that they indeed did conspire against him. harr's "evidence" is, what elae could it have been, which is another iteration of, they have not dis[roveen my allegations. hatt has to prove his allegations.; July 27, 2016 at 7:09 AM
Anonymous said...: hey harr:

Whay would Duke think an insignificant little twerp like you is worth the effort it would take to discriminate against you. Why would anyone go to any effort to discredit you. You do such an effective job of discrediting yourself.; July 27, 2016 at 7:11 AM
Anonymous said...: harr sad:

"Although the inaccuracies in the WRAL story were for the purpose of concealing Duke's discrimination against me, and I do find it definitely biased against me, I don't think it presents grounds for legal action."

Presumes a fact not in evidence, that Duke did discriminate against harr.

harr, what else could it have been is not evidence.; July 27, 2016 at 7:13 AM
Anonymous said...: harr said:

"
In 2010, the dean and president's office staffs were alerted in a letter that I was planning to attend"

harr has not established that either the dean ot the president were personally aware of his plans to attend, that anyone in the dean's office or in the president's office ever thought that anyone considered harr's announcement momentous enough to bring to the personal attention of the dean or the president.

harr's self inflated idea of his own importance does not establish that anyone would go to the effort to discriminate against him.; July 27, 2016 at 7:19 AM
Anonymous said...: harr said:

"In googling my name, I accidentally came upon another article/press release dated December 18, 2015 in which Fix the Court made inaccurate statements about my case."

Maybe harr thinks this as another opportunity to shake someone down for a big settlement.; July 27, 2016 at 7:22 AM
Anonymous said...: harr said:

"I think your explanation is more complicated that the reality. I believe that since the discrimination incident took place during an event in which he was the guest interviewee, he decided to eliminate any appearance of partiality by recusing himself."

Except harr never established thay Duke deliberately discriminated against him.; July 27, 2016 at 7:24 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 7:11 am said:
"Whay would Duke think an insignificant little twerp like you is worth the effort it would take to discriminate against you"

Hey, hey, hey, hey-now. Don't be mean.; July 27, 2016 at 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: From the December 18, 2015 Fix the Court article:

The third case in this category, Harr v. Brodhead, dates back to the Duke lacrosse scandal of 2006, after which Sidney Harr set up the “Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong,” with the goal of reinstating the North Carolina prosecutor, Nifong, who lost his law license after his aggressive and fraudulent prosecution of three students for rape.

Sidney what is inaccurate in the above?; July 27, 2016 at 4:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Forgot to copy the last paragraph from Fix the Court

Harr attended a Justice Breyer event on Duke’s campus in 2010 and at its conclusion handed out business cards bearing the name of the Committee, at which point he was physically taken off campus by campus security and university police. Harr sued over the incident, claiming his First Amendment rights were violated. Breyer recused at the cert. stage, as he likely felt he was too close for comfort to that incident.

Again Sidney what inaccuracies?; July 27, 2016 at 4:12 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Forgot to copy the last paragraph from Fix the Court

Harr attended a Justice Breyer event on Duke’s campus in 2010 and at its conclusion handed out business cards bearing the name of the Committee, at which point he was physically taken off campus by campus security and university police. Harr sued over the incident, claiming his First Amendment rights were violated. Breyer recused at the cert. stage, as he likely felt he was too close for comfort to that incident.

Again Sidney what inaccuracies?

How about the entire paragraph. This was from an article in a December 18, 2015 post by Fix the Court. As I have always maintained, following the interview I was leaving the building when I was approached by the Associated Press reporter who asked me for my opinions of the event. After discussing it with him, I told him about my Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, and we exchanged business cards. This is the only card I handed out following the event.

Furthermore, I was not physically taken off the campus. At one point, the security guard did put his hand on my shoulder and I jerked it back out of frustration... I was completely upset by the security guard's actions. That was the only time I made contact with the security guard and the campus police never directly spoke to me or physically touched me. So how was I physically taken off campus?

What the article failed to say is that I made a good faith effort to resolve the issue so that I (and other Nifong supporters) could feel at ease when attending events at Duke University open to the public... but Duke's response to my efforts were confrontational. I waited till the last possible moment to file my lawsuit before the statute of limitations expired.

I don't know where Fix the Court got its sources for either of the stories it did about my lawsuit against Duke University, but I believe that I am a more reliable source as I actually lived it.

Consider yourself elucidated.; July 27, 2016 at 6:29 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "... definitely made a libelous statement by stating that I accosted the justice."

I am sure Sid has no idea what the definition of libel is, nor is he willing to learn. However, for readers who care libel is the publication a false statement that damages someone else's reputation. The accuracy of the Fix the Court report is certainly in dispute, but there must be proof of damage. So far, Sid's reputation is for filing frivolous, vexatious and pointless litigation, making false claims and breaching confidences placed in him. I'm not sure what could be published that would harm that reputation.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

At least you acknowledge that the statement about me accosting Justice Breyer is not necessarily accurate. And being a false statement, it would tend to contribute to damaging my reputation... it being irrelevant what my reputation may be at the time. Otherwise, it would be acceptable to publish false statements derogatory towards one's reputation if that person had a disreputable reputation to begin with. My reputation is not the issue here... it is the nature of the false statement which is geared toward damaging one's reputation. By saying that I accosted the Justice does in no way enhance my reputation. Ergo, the statement is libelous.

Don't you believe that it would be best for Fix the Court to just rectify the mistake by publishing a correction or taking other reasonable steps and then move on, rather than allowing it to simmer and risk a lawsuit?; July 27, 2016 at 6:44 PM
Anonymous said...: But, by your own admission the Statute of Limitations has expired - and Harr 3 was filed after it, you have yet to explain why you don't think it should apply to you.; July 28, 2016 at 3:09 AM
Anonymous said...: I believe it would be best for them to realize you are insane and ignore you. You've shown that if people respond to you it never stops. You ignore the crazies, you don't engage them.; July 28, 2016 at 3:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 157 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 28 days since the end of June, 96 days since April 23rd, 135 days since the Ides of March and 3,330 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 28, 2016 at 3:22 AM
Anonymous said...: from harr:

"What the article failed to say is that I made a good faith effort to resolve the issue so that I (and other Nifong supporters) could feel at ease when attending events at Duke University open to the public"

What youfail to say is, you had no case in he first place. You alleged that the Ptesident of Duke and the Dean of the lae school conspired to discriminate against you because of your advocacy for nifng(which is interesting because have also stated ht happened in the Duke Rape Hoax had nothing to do with your presence on Duke). You say you sent letters to the Office of the Dean and to the office of the president. You have not at all established that this resulted in a conspiracy against you. You have not established that either the Dean or the Presiden ever read your letters. I say again, what you try to pass off as evidence is, what else could it have been. That is not evidence. That is you alleging the defendants have t disprove your allegations. You have to prove them.; July 28, 2016 at 3:43 AM
Anonymous said...: from harr:

"Don't you believe that it would be best for Fix the Court to just rectify the mistake by publishing a correction or taking other reasonable steps and then move on, rather than allowing it to simmer and risk a lawsuit?"

Zero risk of that. You don't have a case, as Walt hs pointed out.; July 28, 2016 at 3:44 AM
Anonymous said...: hypocrisy from harr:

"My reputation is not the issue here... it is the nature of the false statement which is geared toward damaging one's reputation. By saying that I accosted the Justice does in no way enhance my reputation. Ergo, the statement is libelous."

Your reputation, generated by your own actions, is that you like to file frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits.

So far as libelous statements intended to damage another's reputation, you have repeatedly said the Lacrosse defendants were guilty of raping crystal. You said that each and every time you have called crystal the victim/accuser in the Duke rape case.

You claimed Reginald Daye had a history of violence towards women. About 25 years before he was murdered by crystal, Reginald Daye was charged with assaulting a woman. In your reporting of tht incident you omitted that the charges were dropped. You also omitted that Officer Bond had interviewed women with whom REginald Daye had relationships before he fell in with crystal, and they told Officer Bond that REginald Daye was not violent.

You alleged AG Cooper, motivated by tour imaginary carpetbagger jihad, got after nifomg immediately after nifong had charge the Lacrosse players with rape. AG Cooper did not get involved until January of 2007y, about 9 months after nifong wrongfully charged the Lacrosse players with rape, after nifong asked him to take over the cse.

You say Mrs. Rae Evans initiated the carpetbagger jihad immediately after nifong began his prosecution. Mrs. Evans made her statement at the end of January 2007, after the Stte Bar had filed ethics charges against nifong.

harr, you make it your standard procedure to make false statements about people you dislike.; July 28, 2016 at 3:57 AM
Anonymous said...: So far as harr being credible, we have his suit against DA Freeman to consider.

The relief sought by harr was that DA Freeman have crystal's conviction for murder overturn, that DA Freeman bring about crystal's release from prison.

harr now says that crystal's conviction had nothing to do with his suit, that he, as a Wake county resident was trying to bring to the attention of the Wake County DA a crime he alleged happened.

And harr says he should be considered credible and reliable.

HAH!!!; July 28, 2016 at 5:29 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: " My reputation is not the issue here..."

Yes, it is. Reputation is the second element of the tort of libel. You must prove the untrue statement damaged your reputation.

..." it is the nature of the false statement which is geared toward damaging one's reputation. By saying that I accosted the Justice does in no way enhance my reputation. Ergo, the statement is libelous."

An example of circular reasoning. That is not good advocacy, nor will it stand up in court.

"Don't you believe that it would be best for Fix the Court to just rectify the mistake by publishing a correction or taking other reasonable steps and then move on, rather than allowing it to simmer and risk a lawsuit?"

In other words, you are trying to shake down a website on the premise that you will file another meritless lawsuit. I do not discuss moral, ethical, or even commercial issues with you until you abandon your meritless and frivolous legal proceedings or threats thereof.

Walt-in-Durham; July 28, 2016 at 5:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: " My reputation is not the issue here..."

Yes, it is. Reputation is the second element of the tort of libel. You must prove the untrue statement damaged your reputation.

..." it is the nature of the false statement which is geared toward damaging one's reputation. By saying that I accosted the Justice does in no way enhance my reputation. Ergo, the statement is libelous."

An example of circular reasoning. That is not good advocacy, nor will it stand up in court.

"Don't you believe that it would be best for Fix the Court to just rectify the mistake by publishing a correction or taking other reasonable steps and then move on, rather than allowing it to simmer and risk a lawsuit?"

In other words, you are trying to shake down a website on the premise that you will file another meritless lawsuit. I do not discuss moral, ethical, or even commercial issues with you until you abandon your meritless and frivolous legal proceedings or threats thereof.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, I am not trying to shakedown a website. I am trying to get it to accurately inform its readers of the truths regarding my discrimination lawsuit against Duke University. If the website does what I request, then the false and libelous statement will be removed, the website's readership will be informed of the truth, and I will move onward with my fight for justice for Crystal Mangum and others.

Walt, do you believe that Fix the Court should concentrate first on fixing its stories by reporting the truth? Or do you believe that it is okay for it to report that I accosted Justice Breyer? Next thing you know, it might say that I assaulted Justice Breyer. The truth is the collateral victim in the Fix the Court press release of July 11, 2016, as well as the December 18, 2015 article on its website.; July 28, 2016 at 5:41 AM
Walt said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; July 28, 2016 at 6:10 AM
Walt said...: Again Sid, abandon your threat of a frivolous and meritless lawsuit, and I'll be happy to discuss business, journalism, ethics, morality or the time of day. Continue to threaten your frivolous and meritless lawsuits and it's all just an attempted shakedown.

Walt-in-Durham; July 28, 2016 at 7:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt,

You know better. Sid will never stop with the lawsuits - it's the only way he can force them to pay attention to him. Everyone largely ignores his letters, or he refuses to do the follow-up (as with Meier - he posted the letter where Meier said he'd need proof from Crystal that he was authorized to talk - that's gone nowhere, so one wonders how much Crystal really knows).

Filing a lawsuit, they at least have to acknowledge he exists.

I suspect he will sue the Durham DA soon, and will probably file petitions to have both Durham and Wake DAs removed.

He needs attention, sadly this is the only way he can get it.; July 28, 2016 at 7:31 AM
JSwift said...: Walt responded: Again, Sid, abandon your threat of a frivolous and meritless lawsuit, and I'll be happy to discuss business, journalism, ethics, morality or the time of day.

Sidney,

I will make a different offer: Correct all of the factual errors and retract all of the baseless accusations on your website, and I will be happy to discuss the errors and accusations others have made.

I find it hypocritical for you to complain about factual errors and baseless accusations made by others when this blog is filled with them.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; July 28, 2016 at 8:00 AM
Walt said...: Anon at 7:31, everything you say is true. Only Sid's racial bias may keep Roger Echols from being sued.

Walt-in-Durham; July 28, 2016 at 8:01 AM
Anonymous said...: from harr:

"Walt, I am not trying to shakedown a website. I am trying to get it to accurately inform its readers of the truths regarding my discrimination lawsuit against Duke University."

The only truth to your lawsuit is that it has no merit. You allege a conspiracy on the part of Duke to discriminate against you. You have provided no facts to support your allegations.

Saying, what else coud it have been is not providing facts.; July 28, 2016 at 8:59 AM
Anonymous said...: hypocrisy from harr:

"
Walt, do you believe that Fix the Court should concentrate first on fixing its stories by reporting the truth?"

harr has never reported the truth, just his delusional fantasies about the truth.; July 28, 2016 at 9:01 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; July 28, 2016 at 9:50 AM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: "Correct all of the factual errors and retract all of the baseless accusations on your website, and I will be happy to discuss the errors and accusations others have made."................................................... Give us some examples or is this just one more false premise. Be sure and replace what you call factual errors with your own correct facts and be sure to show evidence that what you call baseless accusations have no basis.; July 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM
A Lawyer said...: Give us some examples or is this just one more false premise. Be sure and replace what you call factual errors with your own correct facts and be sure to show evidence that what you call baseless accusations have no basis.

You could start with the Anonymous post at 3:57 A.M. today.; July 28, 2016 at 10:49 AM
Anonymous said...: hissy fit emerges with more clap trap:

"Give us some examples or is this just one more false premise. Be sure and replace what you call factual errors with your own correct facts and be sure to show evidence that what you call baseless accusations have no basis."

harr and hissy fit allege crystal was raped. There is no evidence crystal was raped. Neither har nor hissy fit(providing they are two distinct entities) have never provided any evidence that crystal was raped, that crystal told the truth when she said she was raped.

harr says Mrs. Rae Evans launched the carpetbagger jihad which took down nifong when she made her statement to 60 Minutes. She made that statement at the end of January 2007. By that time, the NC Bar had already filed ethics charges against nifong.

harr said the state bar got after nifong immediately after nifong began his prosecution of the Lacrosse defendants. The state bar did not start itsinvestigation of nifong until December of 2006, months after nifong had rhe defendants indicted for and charged with first degree rape.

harr says his lawsuit against DA Freeman was not about crystal. In that suit, the relief requested was that crystal's conviction be overturned and crystal be released.

harr says tat Duke conspired to discriminate against him, but offers no support but what else could it have been.

harr says his activity at the Breyer event was not related to the Duke Rape Hoax. Yrt he was wearing his J4N shirt, was passing out his J4N business cards and inviting people to visit his J4N web site, which would have never existed had the Duke Rape Hoax never happened.

nifong charged the Lacrosse players with rape. hissy fit has claimed nifong did not charge the Lacrosse players with rape.

hissy fit and harr claim that nifong did not conceal exculpatory evidence from the Lacrosse defendants. It was established in open court, when brian meehan admitted under oath that he and nifong conspired not to report to the lacrosse player that the only male DNA found on crystal did not match their DNA.

hissy fit claims there were mystery rapists at the Lacrosse party. He claims that the DNA found on crystal had been deposited at the Lacrosse paty, but admits he can establish neither that the DNA was deposited at the Lacrosse party, nor that the DNA could not have been deposited before the Lacrosse party.

hissy fit claims there were mystery rapists, claiming that kilgo, whoever or whatever kilgo was, told him about a Lacrosse player who had witnessed that rape. However, hissy fit huimself has admitted he can not verify that kilgo ever told him that.

hissy fit claims the story of crystal stealing a cab, leading a high speed chase while impaired and trying to run down a police officer was concocted by the Lacrosse defense lawyers. The story came from police records generated years before the Duke Rape Hoax ever happened.; July 28, 2016 at 10:56 AM
Anonymous said...: hissy fit:

You and harr are the ones alleging crystal was raped. It is not up to anyone to provide any facts that she was not raped. It is up to you and harr to provide facts that show she had been raped. So far you haven't. Again, the best you can come up with is, no one can prove she lied. You and harr and crystal have to show she told the truth.; July 28, 2016 at 11:19 AM
Anonymous said...: hissy fit, one thing more in your record is you believe tawana brawley was raped. There was no evidence she was. When Stephen Pagones sued her for defamation, she skipped town and hid out for years rather than defend herswelf. She lost by default which is an admission she could not defend herself.

That you give her credibility is an example of how you yourself an not distinguish credible from non credible. So why should any one take you seriously, why should anyon believe you tell the truth?; July 28, 2016 at 11:24 AM
kenhyderal said...: That post was directed to JSwift, not to you Dr. Anonymous. Of course I was being facetious but only giving him some of his own medicine; subjecting him to similar demands he often makes of Dr. Harr and myself.; July 28, 2016 at 1:25 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny notes: That post was directed to JSwift, not to you Dr. Anonymous.

My post was directed to Sidney, not to you. I will give you some of your own medicine; I will respond to Sidney, but not to you.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; July 28, 2016 at 1:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Dr. Anonymous when there was not enough evidence to convict for rape that's when, predictably, the Trial Lawyers moved in. Tawana wisely left the state rather then be re-victimized. She was "hiding" in plain sight. I don't know Tawana Brawley but I got my information from Politics Nation; July 28, 2016 at 1:34 PM
kenhyderal said...: @JSwift Can I assume then that you concur with Dr. A's response?.; July 28, 2016 at 1:37 PM
JSwift said...: Kennyhyderal,

No, you may not.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; July 28, 2016 at 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: clap trp ftom hissy fit:

"That post was directed to JSwift, not to you Dr. Anonymous. Of course I was being facetious but only giving him some of his own medicine; subjecting him to similar demands he often makes of Dr. Harr and myself.""

BULLSHIT!!!

hissy fit ducks the issue of why he can not prove either that crystal was raped, can not prove crystal told the truth when she alleged she was raped.; July 28, 2016 at 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: more clap trap from hissy fit:

"Dr. Anonymous when there was not enough evidence to convict for rape that's when, predictably, the Trial Lawyers moved in. Tawana wisely left the state rather then be re-victimized. She was "hiding" in plain sight. I don't know Tawana Brawley but I got my information from Politics Nation"

In other words you got clap trap from race baiter al sharpton.

Tawana ducked and ran because she knew she had, like crystal would do years later, lied about being raped.

Check out Perry Mckinnon .; July 28, 2016 at 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: hissy fit says:

"...I was being facetious but only giving him some of his own medicine; subjecting him to similar demands he often makes of Dr. Harr and myself."

hissy fit, I say again, is ducking the issue, why neither he nor harr can prove crystal told the truth about being raped.

hissy fit, you are asserting. It is yourobligation to prove, and you are ducking and running rather than proving.; July 28, 2016 at 2:23 PM
Anonymous said...: hissy fit, what is your evidence that crystal told the truth?; July 28, 2016 at 2:30 PM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: "I will respond to Sidney, but not to you"............................. How about it Dr. Harr wouldn't you like to hear what JSwift characterizes as your factual errors and your baseless accusations.; July 28, 2016 at 2:43 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "hissy fit, what is your evidence that crystal told the truth?"..................... Crystal is a friend of mine, I don't required evidence from her. I do know her to be an honest person who would have no reason to lie to me.; July 28, 2016 at 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: hissy fit, here is the issue you try to duck.

harr maintains that crystal was raped. harr says no one can prove crystal lied about being raped. What evidence do you or harr have that proves crystal told te truth?; July 28, 2016 at 2:51 PM
Anonymous said...: clap trap from hissy fit:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "hissy fit, what is your evidence that crystal told the truth?"..................... Crystal is a friend of mine, I don't required evidence from her. I do know her to be an honest person who would have no reason to lie to me. "

So explain why there is no evidence she told the truth.

To establish a crime, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that crystal told the truth. What you believe about crystal is irrelevant, since your belief does not establish that she was raped.

After all, your belief in mystery rapists is based on information you can not verify, that kilgo had an anonymous lacrosse player who witnessed a rape, that kilgo ever told you that.; July 28, 2016 at 3:43 PM
Anonymous said...: hey hissy fit:

Why should anyone blieve you know the truth.

It was fact tht nifong indicted the three Lacrosse defendants for first degree rape. You claimed he did not.

What yu believe is not at all grounded in fact.; July 28, 2016 at 3:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Anyway, hissy fit, what you believe about crystal's credibility is irrelevant. How would you demonstrate before a court of law that crystal told the truth. nifong would have had to convince a court beyond a reasonable doubt that crystal told the truth.; July 28, 2016 at 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...: more claptrap from hissy fiy:

"JSwift said: "I will respond to Sidney, but not to you"............................. How about it Dr. Harr wouldn't you like to hear what JSwift characterizes as your factual errors and your baseless accusations."

harr haas docmented he is not interested in any truth, just his own fantasies. Again I cite harr's lawsuit against DA Freeman. harr's relief sought was that DA Freeman get crystal's conviction overturned and that DA Freeman get crystal release. harr subsequently said he only wanted to bring DA Freemam's attention to what he believed was a crime.; July 28, 2016 at 3:52 PM
Anonymous said...: hissy fit:

"Crystal is a friend of mine, I don't required evidence from her."

So what legal weight does that have? None.

How does your opinion establish guilt in a court of law?; July 28, 2016 at 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...: hissy fit:

You are trying to dodge the issue, there is no evidence crystal was raped.; July 28, 2016 at 4:04 PM
Anonymous said...: UBES was that you posting at 3:57 A.M. today?

SPIN UBES SPIN

QUACK

QUACK

QUACK; July 28, 2016 at 4:17 PM
Anonymous said...: What is the quack joke?; July 28, 2016 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: another anonymous harr/hissy fit kilgo impotent temper tantrum.; July 28, 2016 at 4:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 156 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 29 days since the end of June, 97 days since April 23rd, 136 days since the Ides of March and 3,331 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 29, 2016 at 4:13 AM
Anonymous said...: harr and hissy fit are ducking and dodging the issue, that there is no evidence crystal told the truth when she said she had been raped.; July 29, 2016 at 4:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anon at 7:31, everything you say is true. Only Sid's racial bias may keep Roger Echols from being sued.

Walt-in-Durham

WRONG-O, Walt. Aren't you forgetting that I would have to file a lawsuit against Echols in the federal court of the Middle District? As you may remember, I have been barred from filing anything in that court.

Consider yourself corrected.; July 29, 2016 at 4:36 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney claims: Aren't you forgetting that I would have to file a lawsuit against Echols in the federal court of the Middle District? As you may remember, I have been barred from filing anything in that court.

This statement is false.

You have NOT been "barred from filing anything in that court." You have a gatekeeper who reviews any proposed filing. Any filing deemed to be frivolous will not be permitted. A legitimate filing will be permitted to be filed. The additional fee of $650 will be refunded in any case of a legitimate filing.

A lawsuit against Echols challenging the absolute immunity he holds in his role as prosecutor will almost certainly be deemed to be frivolous.

Consider yourself corrected.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; July 29, 2016 at 4:56 AM
Walt said...: Sid, John D. Smith is correct when he writes: "You have NOT been "barred from filing anything in that court." You have a gatekeeper who reviews any proposed filing. Any filing deemed to be frivolous will not be permitted. A legitimate filing will be permitted to be filed. The additional fee of $650 will be refunded in any case of a legitimate filing."

As usual, Sid misrepresents the facts again.

Walt-in-Durham; July 29, 2016 at 5:22 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Crystal is a friend of mine, I don't required evidence from her. I do know her to be an honest person who would have no reason to lie to me."

Vouching is not persuasive. But, that is what your posts come down to. You believe Crystal no matter what the evidence is. For those who are guided by the facts and evidence, you need to do more than vouch for Crystal. We know that the DNA tests clear Dave Evans, Reid Seligman and Colin Finnerty, the three men Crystal falsely accused. We know the DNA tests also clear everyone else at the party on the night of March 13/14. We also know that double hearsay is unreliable, so when someone claims that someone else told him that there were others present at the party but not subject to the NTO, we don't believe that assertion. Not without some corroborating evidence.

In short, your vouching is not persuasive.

Walt-in-Durham; July 29, 2016 at 7:06 AM
Anonymous said...: comment from harr:

"WRONG-O, Walt. Aren't you forgetting that I would have to file a lawsuit against Echols in the federal court of the Middle District? As you may remember, I have been barred from filing anything in that court."

arr neglects to mention he has been barred because of his attempts to abuse the legal sydstem,his track record of filing frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits.; July 29, 2016 at 8:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Why couldn't you sue him in State Court? And, you'd file a petition to remove in State Court. You are a sad, pathetic, joke.; July 29, 2016 at 8:17 AM
JSwift said...: Anonymous 8:10 AM claims: [H]arr neglects to mention he has been barred because of his attempts to abuse the legal sydstem,his track record of filing frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits.

This statement is inaccurate.

Harr has NOT been "barred from filing anything in that court." He has a gatekeeper who reviews any proposed filing. Any filing deemed to be frivolous will not be permitted. A legitimate filing will be permitted to be filed. The additional fee of $650 will be refunded in any case of a legitimate filing.

The correct statement should read: Harr neglects to mention he is subject to a gatekeeper because of his attempts to abuse the legal system, his track record of filing frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits.

I suggest that you correct your error.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; July 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...: John D. Smith
New York, NY

July 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM:

I stand corrected.; July 29, 2016 at 8:55 AM
JSwift said...: Anonymous 8:10 AM/8:55 AM:

Thank you.

Sidney,

See how easy it is to admit an error? I suggest that you admit that your 4:36 AM post was factually inaccurate.

Kennyhyderal,

Now that I have provided an example of a factual error in a statement made by Sidney, I urge you to call on him to admit his factual error and to correct it. Because he views you as an enlightened supporter, you are in a unique position to offer advice he may accept. (By the way, the source for my correction is the June 30 order issued by Judge Eagles. See paragraphs 2.b. through 2.d. Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7z91VniTzKQeS1iU3hFenFxamc/view)

John D. Smith
New York, NY; July 29, 2016 at 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: from harr:

"WRONG-O, Walt. Aren't you forgetting that I would have to file a lawsuit against Echols in the federal court of the Middle District? As you may remember, I have been barred from filing anything in that court."

No you wouldn't have filed a lawsuit against DA Echols. Your megalomaniacal belief was you could force the Wake County DA to intervene and force the Wake County DA to overturn crystal's conviction. You had no intention of going after DA Echols.

And, when confronted with your delusional megalomania, you tried denial.; July 29, 2016 at 9:17 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "We know the DNA tests also clear everyone else at the party on the night of March 13/14."............................................ No Walt, we do not know that. Firstly the DNA tests cleared Duke Lacrosse Team Players both those present and ridiculously those not present, save for Devon Sherwood, of a DNA depositing rape as well as two unlucky party guests who happened to appear in photos of the dancing (n.b. -many Players, who were there were not seen in photographs) Secondly, there was no definitive determination of those who were present. No list was ever compiled. Neither, police or prosecution know with certainty who all was there. Thirdly, not all sexual assaults deposit DNA that a rape kit would pick-up. Fourthly, to a high degree of certainty Evans' probable DNA was found on Crystal's broken fingernail. Fifthly DNA extracted from sperm was detected unexplained by Crystal's consensual sexual history for as long as a month before the Party.; July 29, 2016 at 9:42 AM
Anonymous said...: clap trap from hissy fit:

"Walt said: "We know the DNA tests also clear everyone else at the party on the night of March 13/14."............................................ No Walt, we do not know that."

hissy fit's evidence, that we do not know who was at the party, comes, supposedly, from kilgo. kilgo supposedly said a lacrosse player friend told him there were a number of party attendees who were not lacrosse players and that he had witnessed them raping crystal. hissy fit can not verify that kilgo ever told him that. Even if he did, as A Lawyer has said, it would have been double hearsay, not evidence.

"Firstly the DNA tests cleared Duke Lacrosse Team Players both those present and ridiculously those not present, save for Devon Sherwood, of a DNA depositing rape as well as two unlucky party guests who happened to appear in photos of the dancing (n.b. -many Players, who were there were not seen in photographs)"

So what does that mean? The male DNA found on crystal did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team. The sexual assault crystal described, again, was a gang rape in which multiple assailants penetrated her and left DNA. The DNA found on the rape kit exonerated the members of the Lacrosse team. So why were they prosecuted, and they were prosecuted for first degree rape.

"Secondly, there was no definitive determination of those who were present. No list was ever compiled. Neither, police or prosecution know with certainty who all was there."

Another iteration of hissy fit saying, prove there were no mystery rapists. What is legally significant is that no one, and that includes hissy fit and kilgo, ever presented any evidence that mystery rapists actually were at the party. kilgo has since vanished from J4N along with all his posts. The anonymous Lacrosse player has not materialized over an intervl of 10+ years. What that suggests is that kilgo's anonymous larosse player does not exist and that hissy fit fabricated the story.

"Thirdly, not all sexual assaults deposit DNA that a rape kit would pick-up."

Another irrelevant statement. The rape crystal described would have left DNA evidence. hissy fit claims that Dr. Manly saw a whitish fluid in crystal's genital tract which she believed was semen. That observation was made at about the same time the rape kit would have been collected. If that fluid had been semen, then the rape kit would have tested positive for alkaline phosphatse. It did not, which did rather definitively ruled out the deposition of semen on crystal on the night of 13/14 March 2006, regardless of how many hypothetical explanations no clinical training, no clinical experience, no legal training, no legal experience hissy fit proposes.

"Fourthly, to a high degree of certainty Evans' probable DNA was found on Crystal's broken fingernail."

End part 1.; July 29, 2016 at 10:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Part 2:

A male can leave his DNA on a woman's hand just by shaking it, So explain why the finding of DNA compatible with but not definitively matching David Evans' DNA found on a false fingernail, establishes probable cause for rape. Why does the failure to find DNA definitively matching David Evans' DNA on crystal's person, after crystal alleged a rape in which her assailants left their DNA on her person, does not exclude David Evans as a suspect.

"Fifthly DNA extracted from sperm was detected unexplained by Crystal's consensual sexual history for as long as a month before the Party."

hissy fit has admitted there was a 24 hour interval during which the DNA could have been deposited. We know no DNA was deposited on crystal after the party. hissy fit CAN NOT establish that the DNA was deposited on the night of 13/14 March 2006. Nor can hissy fit establish that the DNA WAS NOT deposited before the night of 13/14 March 2006. All the DNA establishes was that crystal had sex with multiple men. There was nothing to indicate the sex was forcible. The only physical finding was diffuse vaginal edema, which is not something pathognomonic of forcible sex. All that says is that crystal's sexual history is not completely revealed.

Basically, in this screed, hissy fit again reveals he has no evidence that crystal ever told the truth when she alleged she was raped.; July 29, 2016 at 10:50 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: CLARIFICATIONS ADDED IN CAPS

No Walt, we do not know that WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

Firstly, the DNA tests cleared Duke Lacrosse Team Players, both those present and ridiculously those not present (SUPPORTING THE VIEW THAT THE NON-TESTIMONIAL ORDER SIGNED OFF BY THE DURHAM DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL), save for Devon Sherwood, of a DNA depositing rape, as well as two unlucky party guests who happened to appear in PUBLICLY RELEASED photos of the dancing ((n.b. -many Players, who were there were not seen in photographs). OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS WERE AVAILABLE TO THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATORS AND THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, WE MAY ASSERT ANYTHING WE WANT ABOUT WHO WAS PRESENT IN THEM.

Secondly, there was no definitive determination of those who were present. ALTHOUGH EVANS PROVIDED A LIST OF THE ATTENDEES, WHICH INCLUDED TWO UNNAMED NON-PLAYERS (WHOM HE CLAIMED NOT TO KNOW) BROUGHT BY A NAMED PLAYER, No list was ever compiled THAT WAS INVESTIGATED TO ENSURE THAT IT WAS COMPLETELY ACCURATE. Neither police or prosecution know with ABSOLUTE certainty who all was there. ALTHOUGH THE PARTY WAS HELD DURING A VACATION DURING WHICH THE CAMPUS WAS LARGELY DESERTED, IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSERT THAT DOZENS OF NON-PLAYERS ATTENDED A TEAM FUNCTION.

Thirdly, not all sexual assaults deposit DNA that a rape kit would pick-up. IT IS REASONABLE TO IGNORE THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS MADE BY CRYSTAL IN HER EARLY INTERVIEWS AND IN HER WRITTEN STATEMENT WHEN DETAILS FOR THOSE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ARE PROVEN FALSE WITH VIRTUAL CERTAINTY. AS A RESULT, CRYSTAL'S ALLEGATIONS MUST BE MODIFIED SUCH THAT ONLY THOSE PARTS THAT CANNOT BE DISPROVEN WITH CERTAINTY SURVIVE. THE INACCURACIES IN HER EARLY ACCUSATIONS DO NOT DETRACT FROM HER CREDIBILITY IN THE SURVIVING PORTIONS.

Fourthly, to a high degree of certainty Evans' probable DNA was found on Crystal's broken fingernail. THE DNA FOUND IN A LIQUID MIXTURE USED TO SWAB THE PASTE-ON FINGERNAILS (NOT BROKEN) FOUND IN THE WASTEBASKET IN EVANS' BATHROOM COULD NOT RULE OUT EVANS AS A SOURCE (EVANS WAS 98% LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN THE SOURCE). OTHER EXPLANATIONS, SUCH AS TRANSFERENCE FROM OTHER MATERIAL IN THE WASTEBASKET THAT CONTAINED EVANS' DNA, SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS. THIS EVIDENCE IS FAR MORE CREDIBLE THAN THE FAILURE TO FIND EVANS' DNA IN AND ON CRYSTAL AND ON HER CLOTHING.

Fifthly, DNA extracted from sperm was detected unexplained by Crystal's CLAIMED consensual sexual history for as long as a month before the Party. THE FAILURE OF NIFONG TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCE OF THIS DNA OR TO CONFIRM WHETHER CRYSTAL'S CLAIMED CONSENSUAL SEXUAL HISTORY WAS COMPLETE MAKE IT MANDATORY THAT HER CLAIM BE ACCEPTED AS FACT.; July 29, 2016 at 11:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Another quick point -- In addition to Evans, there are over 3 MILLION people in the US today who could not be ruled out as the source of that same DNA.

It may be that the DNA even matches Kenny's.

Think about it....; July 29, 2016 at 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm thinking about it

???

???

???

???

???; July 29, 2016 at 6:35 PM
Anonymous said...: NOW I UNDERSTAND

KENNY IS A MYSTERY RAPIST

THAT IS HOW HE KNEW CRYSTAL WAS RAPED; July 29, 2016 at 6:56 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT NOTICE!!!

Here is a link that you might find interesting.

Be interested in your comments about it.; July 30, 2016 at 3:58 AM
Anonymous said...: harr gives a link to to something he published, which is nothing but a repetition oof the clap trap he has already posted.; July 30, 2016 at 4:07 AM
Anonymous said...: This article refers to harr as "doctor" which is an inaccurate description of harr. Yes harr has a medical degree. Beyond that, he was never accepted into residency trainng, never achieved medical specialty board certification, and spent his post medical school career filing and losing a string of frivolous lawsuits. harr does not have the credentials to render any meanngful medical opinion about anything.; July 30, 2016 at 4:12 AM
Anonymous said...: So far as discrimination, harr alleges that the President of Duke and the Dean of Duke's law school conspired to discriminate against him. His support for this is, he had sent a letter to the office of the president and the office of the dean announcing he was going to attend a function at which Justice Stephen Breyer would appear, He has not established that either the President of Duke or the dean of the Law School ever read his letter. He has not established that either the president of Duke or the Dean of its law w=school considered him significant enough to cause anyone to discriminate against him. harr is on record for believing that Duke caved in to the Lacrosse defendants and paid each of them an exorbitant settlement. I believe harr thought if he filed suit against Duke they would cave in nd pay him an exorbitant settlement.; July 30, 2016 at 4:23 AM
Anonymous said...: harr's lawsuit against DA Freeman is ridiculous. harr says that he is a Wake County resident, that crystal, ther murdered of Reginald Daye, is incarcerated in a state prison in WWake County, and that gives him a right to sue to force the Wake County DA to intervene in a crimina case which happened in Durham County and have that verdict overturned, ignrung advice from lawyers that the Wake County does not have any authority to intervende in a case which happened outsie her jurisdiction, The relief harr sought was that crystal's convction be overturned and crystal be released from prison. harr then claimed his lawsuit had nothing to do with crystal, tat he was trying to bring to ythe DA's attention to a crime.; July 30, 2016 at 4:28 AM
Anonymous said...: When will we get the next round of harr/hissy fit a2nonymous posts?; July 30, 2016 at 5:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 155 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 30 days since the end of June, 98 days since April 23rd, 137 days since the Ides of March and 3,332 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 30, 2016 at 5:15 AM
Anonymous said...: harr, just because there might be someone who would publish your clap trap does not give your clap trap validity.; July 30, 2016 at 6:17 AM
Anonymous said...: The Headline:

"North Carolina District Attorney’s Being Sued & Accused Of Racial Discrimination, Condoning False Imprisonment & Ignoring Commission Of A Crime By Dr. Sidney Harr."

harr's basis for the lawsuit:

He lives in Wake County. crystal, who murdered Reginald Daye, is inccarcerated in a state prison in Wake County.

The crime crystal committed(and it was not the first crime she ever committed) happened in Durham County.

harr has sued Wake County DA Lorrin Freeman to force her to overturn crystal's conviction and have crystal released. The relief harr sought was that crystal's conviction be overturned and crystal be released.

As trained lawyers have pointed out, that is a frivolous, non meritorious lawsuit.

The Huffington Post mentions none of that.

The Huffington Post article is not anything independent from J4N. The Huffington Post article was probably harr getting his own clap trap published in another publication, nothing more. It, like all of harr's claims, has no basis in fact.; July 30, 2016 at 6:42 AM
Anonymous said...: What makes suit against DA Lorrin Freeman frivolous and non meritorious is that DA Lorrin Freeman has no authority to intervene in a case in another county. Again, the lawyers who post on J4N have shown that.; July 30, 2016 at 6:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
This article refers to harr as "doctor" which is an inaccurate description of harr. Yes harr has a medical degree. Beyond that, he was never accepted into residency trainng, never achieved medical specialty board certification, and spent his post medical school career filing and losing a string of frivolous lawsuits. harr does not have the credentials to render any meanngful medical opinion about anything.

It can be difficult and painful to face reality and the truth. You acknowledge that Harr has received a medical degree, but then you state that it is inaccurate to refer to Harr as being a "doctor." Your conclusion is nonsensical as the very definition of a doctor is one who has received a medical degree. I don't understand how you justify your statement.; July 30, 2016 at 7:05 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
What makes suit against DA Lorrin Freeman frivolous and non meritorious is that DA Lorrin Freeman has no authority to intervene in a case in another county. Again, the lawyers who post on J4N have shown that.

Do you believe that D.A. Freeman has a right to listen to one of her constituents who wants to make a report about a crime that has been committed? That is the main issue at hand.; July 30, 2016 at 7:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
harr's lawsuit against DA Freeman is ridiculous. harr says that he is a Wake County resident, that crystal, ther murdered of Reginald Daye, is incarcerated in a state prison in WWake County, and that gives him a right to sue to force the Wake County DA to intervene in a crimina case which happened in Durham County and have that verdict overturned, ignrung advice from lawyers that the Wake County does not have any authority to intervende in a case which happened outsie her jurisdiction, The relief harr sought was that crystal's convction be overturned and crystal be released from prison. harr then claimed his lawsuit had nothing to do with crystal, tat he was trying to bring to ythe DA's attention to a crime.

Let me try to simplify my position a little more in hopes that you can better understand.
As a Wake County resident, who happened to help vote the district attorney into office, I believe that the Wake County district attorney has a moral obligation to me, her constituent, to listen to my report of a crime that occurred that is responsible for the wrongful incarceration of one of her constituents.

Let me know if it is necessary to try and break down the above explanation into much simpler terms.; July 30, 2016 at 7:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid you must exist in a parallel universe. You certainly have lost touch with this world.; July 30, 2016 at 7:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
harr gives a link to to something he published, which is nothing but a repetition oof the clap trap he has already posted.

For your edification, The Huffington Post published the blog on its blog site. I did not draft or post the article.

Consider yourself edificated.; July 30, 2016 at 7:26 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid you must exist in a parallel universe. You certainly have lost touch with this world.

Hah! Is that the best comeback you can make?

Face it... you're desperate. You realize that events are on the brink that will see justice for Crystal Mangum... finally. Your feeble comeback is nothing but a coping mechanism. I understand. Let me know if you will require a crying towel. I think you will... and would even consider giving you a discount.; July 30, 2016 at 7:30 AM
A Lawyer said...: Do you believe that D.A. Freeman has a right to listen to one of her constituents who wants to make a report about a crime that has been committed? That is the main issue at hand.

She has the right to listen to anyone she wants to. She does not have a legal obligation to listen to a constituent, much less an obligation that is enforceable in a federal court. (As I've said before, "ignoring Sidney Harr" is not a recognized cause of action.) This has been explained to you repeatedly, yet you refuse to listen or respond.

You realize that events are on the brink that will see justice for Crystal Mangum.

I've asked before: what events? You can't be referring to Harr III, as that has been dismissed. You might be referring to the Freeman case, but that will be dismissed as well. And you can't be referring to the MAR, which you attempted (unsuccessfully) to file in the wrong courthouse.

Let me know if you will require a crying towel.

What color crying towel would you like when your latest batch of pseudo-legal efforts all crash and burn?; July 30, 2016 at 8:07 AM
Anonymous said...: From harr:

"Do you believe that D.A. Freeman has a right to listen to one of her constituents who wants to make a report about a crime that has been committed? That is the main issue at hand."

If you want to report a crime, don't you think you have an obligation to report it to authorities who have jurisdiction?

There is no legal precedent that requires a third party to accept your allegation of a crime at face value, and there is no legal precedent that says you have any authority to have your alleged ctime prosecutrd crime prosecuted. In this case, Lorrin Freeman is a third party, and you do think that your allegations be accepted at face value and be prosecuted.; July 30, 2016 at 8:41 AM
Anonymous said...: from harr:

"It can be difficult and painful to face reality and the truth. You acknowledge that Harr has received a medical degree, but then you state that it is inaccurate to refer to Harr as being a "doctor." Your conclusion is nonsensical as the very definition of a doctor is one who has received a medical degree. I don't understand how you justify your statement."

calling harr a retired docto implies that harr knows what he is talking about when he claims malpractice at Duke caused Reginald Daye's death, tht Dr. Nichols' autopsy was fraudulent.

The truth is, harr was never accepted into residency training, harr never achieved medical specialty board training, and harr spent most of his post medical career filing and losiung frivolous,non meritorious lawsuits. Such a background does not establish harr as any kind of knowledgeable medical expert.

So, harr, consider my statement justified, even though you don't like the truths upon which it is vased.; July 30, 2016 at 8:52 AM
Anonymous said...: from harr:

'
For your edification, The Huffington Post published the blog on its blog site. I did not draft or post the article.

Consider yourself edificated."

What was in the Huffington Report is just a rehash of the undocumented, uncorroborated allegations harr has used in his blog.

It is not the result of any original research. It is not a piece of independent reporting. You have tried to pass it off as independent original research.

Consider yourself informed.; July 30, 2016 at 8:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Nifong Supporter said...

"Let me know if you will require a crying towel. I think you will... and would even consider giving you a discount."

Remind us, Sid. How long has it been since you first told us you would be providing crying towels to those who doubted you?; July 30, 2016 at 9:00 AM
Anonymous said...: from harr:

"Let me try to simplify my position a little more in hopes that you can better understand.
As a Wake County resident, who happened to help vote the district attorney into office, I believe that the Wake County district attorney has a moral obligation to me, her constituent, to listen to my report of a crime that occurred that is responsible for the wrongful incarceration of one of her constituents."

As crystal is incarcerated in a North Carolina State Prison situated in Wake County, does not make her one of DA Freeman's constituents. What do Walt and A Lawyer say about this?

In any event, the alleged crime did not happen in Wake County(and you have only alleged a crime, not proven it) means thw Wake County DA does not have the authority to take any action. You might say you have the right to bring this to her attention, but you do not have any cause of action against her to force her to take action. This has been clearly explained to you by competent legal authorities.

You ignore their advice.

And you have the gall to claim you provide enlightenment and elucidation.; July 30, 2016 at 9:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous July 30, 2016 at 9:00 AM:

"Remind us, Sid. How long has it been since you first told us you would be providing crying towels to those who doubted you?"

Careful.

harr may try to sue you and others to recover the money he has invested in crying towels.; July 30, 2016 at 9:07 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Do you believe that D.A. Freeman has a right to listen to one of her constituents who wants to make a report about a crime that has been committed? That is the main issue at hand."

No, listening to you is not the issue at hand. You demanded in your frivolous and meritless lawsuit that Crystal's conviction be reversed and she be released from prison. Dismiss that foolish lawsuit and then we can discuss whether the DA should listen to your claims, or not. Otherwise, you are just wasting the court's time between now and when it gets around to dismissing your frivolous and meritless lawsuit.

Walt-in-Durham; July 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:25 AM wrote: "Sid you must exist in a parallel universe. You certainly have lost touch with this world."

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

Walt-in-Durham; July 30, 2016 at 9:18 AM
Anonymous said...: harr:

this lawsuit against DA Freeman happened because you believed you could force DA Freeman to bring about crystal's release. You are fining out you are no where near as important and powerful as you believe yourself to be. You are finding out how pitiful and insignificant you really are, after squandering your medical education, after failing to do anything meaningful in your life. And boy are you p---ed, at everyone but the man who relegated you to insignificance, thr man you see every time you look in the mirror.; July 30, 2016 at 9:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, this blog needs to be renamed: The Sidney Harr Medicine Show

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_show; July 30, 2016 at 6:23 PM
kenhyderal said...: If so, in this case, he would be the real "Dr. Good".; July 30, 2016 at 9:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 154 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 31 days since the end of June, 99 days since April 23rd, 138 days since the Ides of March and 3,333 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; July 31, 2016 at 3:44 AM
Anonymous said...: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_show

One similarity between a Medicine Show and J4N is that both are run by men pretending to be a competent Doctor. Notice I said competent.

harr may have gotten a Medical Degree. However his backgroubd, never accepted into residency training, never achieved medical specialty certification, spending most of his post medical school career filing and losing lawsuits and not actually delivering medical care, mark him as NOT a competent, capable, experienced physician.; July 31, 2016 at 4:20 AM
Anonymous said...: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P7YeRBXEUTY; July 31, 2016 at 6:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 153 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 32 days since the end of June, 100 days since April 23rd, 139 days since the Ides of March and 3,334 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; August 1, 2016 at 2:00 AM
Anonymous said...: From harr:

"Fix the Court, on the other hand, definitely made a libelous statement by stating that I accosted the justice. It is my hope that Mr. Roth will take timely measures of rectification to assure that no legal action is taken against him."

and:

"it is the nature of the false statement which is geared toward damaging one's reputation. By saying that I accosted the Justice does in no way enhance my reputation. Ergo, the statement is libelous."

now check out http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/is-sidney-harrs-crusade-for-crystal-mangum-backfiring/Content?oid=3700005

This is the article on the Independent Weekly which detailed harr' post medical school career of filing and losing lawsuits. harr called that article a "hatchet job", which does mean harr considered the article libelous.

harr was asked why he did not sue for libel and replied something to the effect that the author, John H. Tucker, was a nice guy and he did not want to hurt him.

When accused of publishing libel against Reginald Daye, harr said that the defense against libel is proof that the alleged libellous statements were true.

Suggests that harr did not want to risk giving John H. Tucker the opportunity to show his statements were true, which in turn suggests harr knows the statements in the Indy Week article are true.; August 1, 2016 at 5:21 AM
Anonymous said...: from:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-defamation-cases.html

"The major defenses to defamation are:

truth
the allegedly defamatory statement was merely a statement of opinion
consent to the publication of the allegedly defamatory statement
absolute privilege
qualified privilege"

"Truth:

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Remember that defamation is a false statement of fact. So, if the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory."

So, harr, why were you so reluctant to let John H. Tucker defend against chargesof libel?

If ohn H. Tucker's statements were libelous, they would have been more damaging to your reputation than what Fix The Court published.

You do seem to be admitting what John H. Tucker wrote was true.; August 1, 2016 at 5:30 AM
A Lawyer said...: You do seem to be admitting what John H. Tucker wrote was true.

I have repeatedly asked Dr. Harr to identify a single false statement in the Indy Week article; he has been unable or unwilling to do so.; August 1, 2016 at 8:26 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Sid said:
"Here is a link that you might find interesting."

Here I'll note that the HuffPo article "2 Dogs, Left Alone In A Car, Crash It Into A West Virginia Walmart" has drawn more comments than the article referencing Sid (which has precisely 0 comments, BTW)

Which is as it should be...; August 1, 2016 at 2:24 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
from:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-defamation-cases.html

"The major defenses to defamation are:

truth
the allegedly defamatory statement was merely a statement of opinion
consent to the publication of the allegedly defamatory statement
absolute privilege
qualified privilege"

"Truth:

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Remember that defamation is a false statement of fact. So, if the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory."

So, harr, why were you so reluctant to let John H. Tucker defend against chargesof libel?

If ohn H. Tucker's statements were libelous, they would have been more damaging to your reputation than what Fix The Court published.

You do seem to be admitting what John H. Tucker wrote was true.

John Tucker's article in Indy Week was full of gossip and misleading statements based on interviews that contained lies. I have no desire to sue Tucker anymore than I do Fix-the-Court. At least I knew John and I liked him. I do not hold him responsible for the article as he was doing the story as he was instructed by his superiors. Also, the fact is that I was able to give a rebuttal in the following edition of Indy Week.

The Fix-the-Court statement that I accosted Justice Breyer is totally false and I have patiently given the site time to make a correction so that its readers will not be misinformed. It is not responsible journalism for a press release to contain such an egregious false and unsubstantiated statement as that about me accosting the justice.; August 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

Are you planning to correct the false statements you have made on this blog? I noted an error earlier in this thread.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; August 1, 2016 at 3:02 PM
Anonymous said...: more from harr, about what I'd expected:

"John Tucker's article in Indy Week was full of gossip and misleading statements based on interviews that contained lies. I have no desire to sue Tucker anymore than I do Fix-the-Court. At least I knew John and I liked him. I do not hold him responsible for the article as he was doing the story as he was instructed by his superiors. Also, the fact is that I was able to give a rebuttal in the following edition of Indy Week.

The Fix-the-Court statement that I accosted Justice Breyer is totally false and I have patiently given the site time to make a correction so that its readers will not be misinformed. It is not responsible journalism for a press release to contain such an egregious false and unsubstantiated statement as that about me accosting the justice."

De facto harr says the Indy Week article was libelous.

He presents a rationalization of why he did not sue for libel.

I believe harr did not sue because he could not prove in a court of law that the statements were false, and he knew John Tucker could prove the statements were true.; August 1, 2016 at 3:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Here is a sentence found on a Google search for accosted:

"As she neared the corner to the hallway that led to their room, Dulce's angry voice accosted her ears."

So, maybe Sidney's arguing with the police and his self righteousness was what accosted the justice. I don't think we will ever know what happened that night since no trial is going to happen. Maybe Sidney can get AG Cooper to declare him innocent of accosting the justice.; August 1, 2016 at 3:46 PM
A Lawyer said...: John Tucker's article in Indy Week was full of gossip and misleading statements based on interviews that contained lies.

I have asked you before, and I now ask you again: Can you identify one statement in the Indy Week article which is false?; August 1, 2016 at 4:15 PM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: "Sidney, Are you planning to correct the false statements you have made on this blog? I noted an error earlier in this thread""........... JSwift refuses to engage with me. He prefers badgering Dr. Harr a man who ,unlike me, invariably turns the other cheek.; August 1, 2016 at 9:48 PM
Anonymous said...: from hissy fit:

"JSwift said: "Sidney, Are you planning to correct the false statements you have made on this blog? I noted an error earlier in this thread""........... JSwift refuses to engage with me. He prefers badgering Dr. Harr a man who ,unlike me, invariably turns the other cheek."

Wrongo(in thr words oh harr the hypocritical deluded megalomaniac). harr makes glaring and obvous errors and then tries to delude his readers.

Casein point:

harr has sued Wake County DA Freeman because he thought he could force DA Freeman into intervening on crystal's behalf and force DA Freeman to get crystal's conviction overturned.

Competent legal authorities have pointed out to harr that his lawsuit was ridiculous. harr's response was, his suit had nothing to do with crystal's conviction. harr said he was just trying to bring DA Freeman's attention to a crime he alleged.

The relief harr sought in his suit was that crystal's conviction be overturned and crystal be released.

Self delusion is not turning the other cheek.

So far as hissy fit not turning the other cheek, he is as pathetically delusional as harr.; August 2, 2016 at 3:07 AM
JSwift said...: Kennyhyderal,

I noted a specific false statement by Sidney earlier in this thread. I also asked you to use your influence as a supporter to encourage Sidney to admit his error and correct it. You failed to respond. Apparently, you are interested only in badgering me.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; August 2, 2016 at 4:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 152 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 33 days since the end of June, 101 days since April 23rd, 140 days since the Ides of March and 3,335 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; August 2, 2016 at 5:15 AM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: ". I also asked you to use your influence as a supporter to encourage Sidney to admit his error and correct it".......................... I am in no position to give advice, at your behest, to Dr. Harr; a man who has far more knowledge, experience and expertise than I. Technically speaking, you are correct but, de facto, it puts Dr. Harr at a prejudicial, subjective determination by those who are antagonistic to him. In other words practically speaking he is not in error. I note, you often, magisterially, demand responses.; August 2, 2016 at 9:39 AM
Anonymous said...: clap trap from hissy fit

"JSwift said: ". I also asked you to use your influence as a supporter to encourage Sidney to admit his error and correct it".......................... I am in no position to give advice, at your behest, to Dr. Harr; a man who has far more knowledge, experience and expertise than I."

You might say he has two or three or four times as much knowledge as you do. However, two or thtrr or four times zero is still zero.

"Technically speaking, you are correct but, de facto, it puts Dr. Harr at a prejudicial, subjective determination by those who are antagonistic to him."

harr is in an objective position of inferiority with those who criticize him because he is not very knowledgeable or intelligent.

"In other words practically speaking he is not in error."

Boy are you deluded. Case in point: harr believes he has a legal right to sue DA Freeman and compel her to bring about the overturning of crystal's murder conviction and the release of crystal.

"I note, you often, magisterially, demand responses."

I note you and harr duck and dodge to avoid giving responses to issues raised. If harr is never wrong, why does he duck this issue, what evidence is there that crystal ever told the truth about being raped.

hissy fit, if you don't like un solicited responses, stop posting stupid questions.; August 2, 2016 at 10:23 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "if you don't like un solicited responses, stop posting stupid questions".........................................Was there a question there?; August 2, 2016 at 2:54 PM
Anonymous said...: lame hissy ft lame; August 2, 2016 at 3:28 PM
A Lawyer said...: To the Anon. at 7:38 P.M.:

Even the most loathsome reptile swimming in his own filth would not spew racist bilge like you pollute this board with. Why don't you go post somewhere more suited to you, like Stormfront?; August 2, 2016 at 8:25 PM
guiowen said...: To the Anon at 7:38,
Please cut that out!; August 2, 2016 at 8:38 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Harr please delete this odious post and bar this poster from your blog. You do have this ability.; August 2, 2016 at 9:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, hissy fit, you have given me an opening which I will take.

Yes the anonymous post at August 2, 2016 at 7:38 PM is loathsome and obnoxious.

However, you and harr repeatedly post that Caucasian men raped crystal on the night of 13/14 March 2006, even though you have zero evidence that the rape ever happened, zero evidence crystal told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.

You do not think is is loathsome or obnoxious to accuse innocent men of a crime which never happened.; August 3, 2016 at 3:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

As a local, do you have any information on the crash landing at the airport today?; August 3, 2016 at 5:22 AM
Anonymous said...: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"; August 3, 2016 at 6:36 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 721 Newer› Newest»

Friday, July 22, 2016

Fix the Court: "Harr accosted Justice Breyer"

721 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me