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

Friday, July 22, 2016

Fix the Court: "Harr accosted Justice Breyer"

721 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 721 of 721

kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "That is how intellectually honest people approach this problem"............... A serious problem indeed! In this context how do you define "intellectual honesty"; August 31, 2016 at 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny keeps calling for jury nullification - so he's admitting Crystal was guilty? Nullification means someone was guilty but the jury considered the law unjust and declined to convict.

If they didn't think she was guilty, they could have just found self-defense.

But, it's great to see Kenny saying Crystal was guilty, but the jury shouldn't have convicted.

It's things like that which prove Kenny hates Crystal and wanted her convicted.; August 31, 2016 at 9:21 AM
Anonymous said...: for hissy fit:

Here is not how to definr intellectual honesty:

crystal claims she was raped. Based on her description, there should be evidence of the rape.Medical exam, forensic testing shows the evidence is not there. Someone comes up with speculation as to why there is no evidence, and then claims his speculation shows evidence was there.; August 31, 2016 at 9:22 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

The following link may be helpful.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

I thought that Walt was rather clear in his suggestion of how you might have approached the legal issues surrounding the Welch opinion. As Walt noted, the intellectually honest approach would have required accepting that the legal discussion provided by Walt, A Lawyer, Abe, Lance and others was supported by the evidence they provided, even if you disagreed that the legal conclusion was just. The intellectually honest approach would have required that you obtain additional information--Walt suggested that you read the briefs in Welch submitted by the parties. The intellectually honest approach would have required that you read the other cases cited in the Welch opinion and briefs. The intellectually honest approach would have required that you continue your research and identify other relevant cases in other jurisdictions. The intellectually honest approach would have required that you concede that the law was essentially as Walt and others had described it, but that you believed the law was unjust and provided a detailed set of arguments, built from your research. The intellectually honest approach would have required that you acknowledge criticism from those who disagree, providing evidence and arguments to counter that criticism.

The link describes "willful ignorance" (i.e., deliberately ignoring facts and arguments that would undermine your position) as a form of intellectual dishonesty. Instead of the intellectually honest approach, you chose to reject the description of the law provided because you did not like the conclusion and essentially chose to accuse your critics of acting in bad faith. You refused to provide evidence to support your conclusion.

A large portion of your posts have been intellectually dishonest (e.g., willful ignorance, double standards, false analogies, straw man arguments, logical fallacies). A number of posters (including myself) have accused you of "master debating," a term you complained was sophomoric (and were correct in that complaint). Posters really were complaining about your intellectual dishonesty.

Sidney relies almost exclusively on intellectually dishonest arguments in his advocacy, not just in his postings on the board (which is bad enough), but also in his advocacy letters and most egregiously in his legal filings. Intellectually dishonest arguments can be effective, but only with an uninformed audience. His intellectual dishonesty almost guarantees his failure in his legal filings.

Your support for his efforts and your refusal to offer any positive criticism (of what he might change in order to be more effective) suggests that you may also be guilty of another form of intellectual dishonesty, i.e., arguing for a viewpoint you disbelieve.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; August 31, 2016 at 9:54 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "In this context how do you define "intellectual honesty"

I don't think you read the post, otherwise it would be clear to you that an intellectually honest person would accept the law as it is and marshal his arguments to change it. An intellectually honest person would not misrepresent the law. He would not continuously say it was something that it was not. But, you are who you are and with friends like you, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham; August 31, 2016 at 9:59 AM
kenhyderal said...: A JSwift; Thank you for the link. I have read it and I don't believe I deserve the appellation of "intellectually dishonest" What facts do you believe I have willfully ignored. Welch may be agreed on as established but it is not codified as immutable. Each case has it's own set of facts and circumstances. I do not disagree with Welch if Daye had died while being treated for a complication of the stab wound. I disagree that this was the case. Dr. Nicholls so-called expert opinion is an opinion only and not a fact. Before arriving at the probable truth all the evidence should be presented and weighed. The Jury received only selective facts and expert opinion from someone defending his own work. A man already censured and terminated for poor work. Can you give any example of willful ignorance, double standards, false analogies, straw man arguments and logical fallacies I have made so I can attempt to refute these gratuitous charges. I note you hold both Dr. Harr and myself to a higher standard then you do any of those who oppose us.; August 31, 2016 at 12:55 PM
Anonymous said...: from hissy fit:

"A JSwift; Thank you for the link. I have read it and I don't believe I deserve the appellation of "intellectually dishonest" What facts do you believe I have willfully ignored. Welch may be agreed on as established but it is not codified as immutable. Each case has it's own set of facts and circumstances. I do not disagree with Welch if Daye had died while being treated for a complication of the stab wound. I disagree that this was the case."

Tour disagreement is meaningless. Reginald Daye did die from a
complication of the stab wound. Reginald Daye was being worked up for an intra abdominal infection. He was put at risk when crystal stabbed him and lacerated his colon. Your opinions based on fallacies, that Reginald Daye was not at risk of an intra abdominal infection, that a diagnosis of DTs precluded the occurrence of an intra abdominal infection. So much for your worthless opinions.

"Dr. Nicholls so-called expert opinion is an opinion only and not a fact."

But it is the opinion of a medical expert. Your opinion and harr's opinions are not the opinions of medical experts. Further, Dr. Nichols' opinion was also the opinion of another medical expert, Dr. Roberts. That a pair of non medical experts disagree with them and that a couple of medical experts indulge in speculative fantasies bout their opinions does not invalidate those opinions.

'Before arriving at the probable truth all the evidence should be presented and weighed."

It was.

"The Jury received only selective facts and expert opinion from someone defending his own work. A man already censured and terminated for poor work."

For whatever reason Dr. Nichols was terminated, you have not shown evidence that his work on tthe Daye autopsy was invalid, spleen notwithstanding. And I remind you, another expert, Dr. Roberts, who was retained by the defense, agreed with Dr. Nichols opinion.Again, your speculation on why Dr. Roberts supported Dr. Nichols' opinion does not invalidate her opinion,just like your fanciful speculation on why there was no evidence crystal was raped does not establish there was evidence.

"Can you give any example of willful ignorance,"

You said nifong did not charge the Lacrosse players with Rape. You said he charged them with sexual assault thinking they would reveal the actual rapists. nifong charged them with rape. You said nifong did not conceal the DNA evidence. He did. You said the police ivestiation was botched, ignoring that nifong controlled the investigation. You said the sources of the DNA found on crystal were never identified, ignoring that nifong had custody of the evidence. You complained that crystal was forced to identify Lacrosse players as her assailants at a flawed photo lineup, ignoring that nifong organized the impropr lineup, and then saying nifong was fighting for justice for crystal. That is a whole lot of ignorance on your part.

"double standards"

You criticized the conduct of a supposed female poster as unladylike, yet you seem oblivious to crystal's documented threat to Milton Walker, I'm going to kill you, M---er F---er.

"false analogies,"

Well, you once described crystal as a glamorous show girl. That is quite an exaggeration.

"straw man arguments and logical fallacies I have made so I can attempt to refute these gratuitous charges."

Well, you say Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic, when a preponderance of the evidence says he was not. You and harr both claim a man who is exposed to hours of colonic contamination of his abdominal cavity is not at risk of an abdominal infection, you say that double hearsay which tyou can not verify you ever heard is rvidence of mystery rapists.

"I note you hold both Dr. Harr and myself to a higher standard then you do any of those who oppose us."

Believe me, I don't think either you or harr are capable of meeting eve the most minimal of standards.; August 31, 2016 at 1:44 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "What facts do you believe I have willfully ignored. Welch may be agreed on as established but it is not codified as immutable." Double standard and willful ignorance.

"Each case has it's own set of facts and circumstances." Willful ignorance of the doctrine of precedent. We are not in England in the 15th Century where courts announced their decisions from the bench without any explanation of the law or why they reached the conclusion they did. Welch contained the reasoning of the court. That is its precedent. Further, as it was not reversed by the Supreme Court, it is the law of the land. You cannot ignore its statement of the law. Which you continue to do.

"I do not disagree with Welch if Daye had died while being treated for a complication of the stab wound." Willful ignorance. The Welch court rejected Welch's (note the difference, Welch is the name of the case, Welch without the italics is the person) argument to dispense with the malice requirement.

I disagree that this was the case." Willful ignorance.

" Dr. Nicholls so-called expert opinion is an opinion only and not a fact." Willful ignorance. Once the jury hears an opinion, it is up to them to decide what the facts are.

" Before arriving at the probable truth all the evidence should be presented and weighed." Willful ignorance. The "evidence" you want to present has all been supposition on your part, nothing more.

"The Jury received only selective facts and expert opinion from someone defending his own work. A man already censured and terminated for poor work." Willful ignorance. See above.

Again, you need to accept Welch and the law of sole or intervening cause as it is rather than how you wish it to be. From there, you need to develop an argument, cognizant that Welch's attorneys have already done some of the work, to convince the court to do away with the malice requirement. Until you do that, everything you post about medical malpractice, pre-existing conditions, various doctors opinions is willfully ignorant.

Walt-in-Durham; August 31, 2016 at 1:52 PM
sconosciuto said...: Kenhyderal, carissimo,
Il tuo amico Kilgo si trova a casa nostra. Lui vuol parlare con te, ma abbiamo bisogna del numero telefonico tuo. Ti prego di farcilo sappere.; August 31, 2016 at 3:27 PM
kenhyderal said...: I said: "Before arriving at the probable truth all the evidence should be presented and weighed." Walt said:" Willful ignorance. The "evidence" you want to present has all been supposition on your part, nothing more".......Is it supposition that Daye was rendered brain dead by an errant esophageal intubation? Is it supposition that he suffered cardiac and cerebral anoxia because of that? Is it supposition that he was electively removed from life support? . These are facts not supposition that I wanted the Jury to hear. Because of Welch are these facts irrelevant? Now for the supposition part. A reasonable person could infer from evidence available that Daye was a chronic alcoholic who went into alcohol withdrawal after being deprived of alcohol; probably a Duke policy for all patients admitted, including alcoholics at risk. A risk that carries with it a responsibility to prevent and stave off this preventable potentially fatal outcome. The death toll from preventable Medical errors is horrendous. Apparently it's the third cause of death in the U.S. and Canada. Because of Welch is this irrelevant to Crystal's case? Ridgeway's instructions to the Jury in effect told them if they saw an intervening sole cause of death they could not convict.; August 31, 2016 at 3:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: Sconosciuto said: "Il tuo amico Kilgo si trova a casa nostra. Lui vuol parlare con te, ma abbiamo bisogna del numero telefonico tuo. Ti prego di farcilo sappere"...................................................................... En primer lugar, preguntarle cuánto le donó; August 31, 2016 at 3:54 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " Is it supposition that he was electively removed from life support?"

No that is hideous. Everything else you posted was irrelevant, and indicative of your willful ignorance. You have been educated and refused to learn. There is nothing left for you but willful ignorance.

Walt-in-Durham; August 31, 2016 at 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: hissy fits latest"

I said: "Before arriving at the probable truth all the evidence should be presented and weighed." Walt said:" Willful ignorance. The "evidence" you want to present has all been supposition on your part, nothing more".......Is it supposition that Daye was rendered brain dead by an errant esophageal intubation? Is it supposition that he suffered cardiac and cerebral anoxia because of that? Is it supposition that he was electively removed from life support? . These are facts not supposition that I wanted the Jury to hear. Because of Welch are these facts irrelevant? Now for the supposition part. A reasonable person could infer from evidence available that Daye was a chronic alcoholic who went into alcohol withdrawal after being deprived of alcohol; probably a Duke policy for all patients admitted, including alcoholics at risk. A risk that carries with it a responsibility to prevent and stave off this preventable potentially fatal outcome. The death toll from preventable Medical errors is horrendous. Apparently it's the third cause of death in the U.S. and Canada. Because of Welch is this irrelevant to Crystal's case? Ridgeway's instructions to the Jury in effect told them if they saw an intervening sole cause of death they could not convict."

With regard to alcoholism, ALL the evidence is: no history of heavy drinking, except for allegations from crystal after she was charged with murder; he was not incapacitated in spite of the supposed BAC of nearly 300-unless he had drunk heavily enough for years to become tolerant he would have ben affected: if hehad drubk that heavily he would have developed liver damage-his liver was found to be normal at autopsy. The preponderance of the evidence is, Reginald Daye was not a chronic alcoholic, the opinion of two non medical experts, hissy fit and harr notwithstanding.

With regard to the Medical error, Reginald Daye would never have been exposed to the risks of treatment, and medical error is a risk of medical treatment, had crystal not stabbed him. The medical error was the result of a workup for intra abdominal infection. Reginald Daye was placed at the risk of intra abdominal infection by crystal, who stabbed him and lacerated his colon. The opinions of two ignorant non medical experts like harr and hissy fit, that there was no possibility of intra abdominal infection, are irrelevant.

There was no intervening cause. As has been explained to hissy fit, if the medical error had risen to the level of malpractice, Duke would have had civil liability. If Dukr had incurred civil liability, that would not have relieved crystal of criminal responsibility. hissy fit's willful ignorance of this does not nullify it.; August 31, 2016 at 4:37 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "No that is hideous. Everything else you posted was irrelevant, and indicative of your willful ignorance".............. You find the truth hideous. I asked you about three facts. Facts I wanted the Jury to hear. Facts not suppositions. If the law says that everything that happened between "she stabbed him, he died" is irrelevant "then if the law supposed that then the law is an ass"; August 31, 2016 at 5:01 PM
JSwift said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 31, 2016 at 5:31 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Your 5:01 response to Walt is limited to an ad hominem attack ("You find the truth hideous."), a summary of the issue ("If the law says that everything that happened between 'she stabbed him' and "he died' is irrelevant") and your emotional conclusion that you disagree with the law ("then the law is an ass.").

As Walt advised you earlier, you need to build out the argument in detail as to why a defendant who committed a violent assault (and your disagreement with the jury's finding as to self-defense is not relevant to the Welch issue) should be excused from responsibility if the victim of the violent act subsequently dies as a result of medical malpractice. You seem to differentiate between (a) medical malpractice that is unquestionably related to treatment of the injury from the violent act or to treatment of a complication (e.g., infection) of the injury from the violent act and (b) malpractice resulting from treatment of a pre-existing condition (even one which may have been made more severe as a result of the trauma from the violent attack).

I can see the arguments for broadening of the conditions for an intervening cause. On the other hand, I can see the arguments for requiring a defendant to remain responsible. You and Sidney appear to believe that an argument requires nothing more than for you to state your conclusion and then attack (as conspirators, hideous, perjurers,etc.) anyone who disagrees with your conclusion.

As you have seen from the reaction to comments on this board, to Sidney's letters and to Sidney's lawsuits, that type of argument is not compelling and persuades few people.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; August 31, 2016 at 5:32 PM
sconoosciuto said...: Carissimo Kenny,
Mi scuserai, ma non parlo spagnolo.; August 31, 2016 at 6:02 PM
The Great Kilgo said...: Kenny,
Please get me out of here! These guys scono and desco, and [nichvpqiugsd; August 31, 2016 at 6:04 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

Have been busy working on a sharlog, writing letters, and other activities in my crusade for justice for Crystal. Consequently, I have not had the opportunity to spend much time on the comments for which I apologize.

Happy to note that Darryl Howard will get a new trial. Whether or not he is innocent or not is debatable. The reason granted by Judge Hudson, I believe, was rather flimsy... especially when compared with Crystal Mangum's case. Irrefutably the medical examiner committed perjury in her trial and produced a fraudulent autopsy report... but Judge Hudson chooses to ignore that. He is kowtowing to the Powers=That-Be... going after Nifong and Mangum while protecting Duke University and its hospital.

Hah, after all of the build-up in the media, Mike Nifong, though subpoenaed, was never called to take the stand. There's an obvious reason for that... The defense was afraid that he would make too credible a witness, without doubt.

Also, it should come as no surprise that Judge Orlando Hudson would rule to give Mr. Howard a new trial... after all, he already made such a ruling before it was overturned on appeal. It's the same thing as Judge Catherine Eagles ruling in Harr-III on my alleged "vexatious and frivolous" filing after ruling the same in Harr-II. Don't these judges have any integrity?; August 31, 2016 at 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Actually, Sid, as proof of your ignorance -

There were 2 hearings - the first was whether the DNA was "favorable" and would have changed the outcome, the 2nd was a MAR based on prosecutorial misconduct. The DNA hearing was first. Nifong had nothing to do with that. Hudson granted the new trial on that basis, so the MAR was moot. The State originally demanded the MAR hearing as well, but after thinking about it over lunch, withdrew their appeal so the MAR didn't happen.

The defense was fully prepared to call Nifong and eviscerate him. The State caved and decided they didn't want to have him on the stand. So the MAR (which was based on Nifongs actions) wasn't heard.

You really are a pathetic lying piece of shit.; August 31, 2016 at 6:46 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Wait- Sid wasn't there in his J4N t-shirt?
Don't worry, Sid....If Echols doesn't abandon plans for a second trial, Nifong will get his chance to take the stand.; August 31, 2016 at 6:59 PM
A Lawyer said...: Also, it should come as no surprise that Judge Orlando Hudson would rule to give Mr. Howard a new trial... after all, he already made such a ruling before it was overturned on appeal. It's the same thing as Judge Catherine Eagles ruling in Harr-III on my alleged "vexatious and frivolous" filing after ruling the same in Harr-II. Don't these judges have any integrity?

It's been repeatedly explained to you why a prior judicial ruling by the same judge is not a basis for recusal. You, like Mr. Hyderal, do not even attempt to deal with legal authority adverse to your position; you just pretend to ignore it. Willfully ignorant, the two of you.; August 31, 2016 at 8:13 PM
Anonymous said...: harr said{

"Hah, after all of the build-up in the media, Mike Nifong, though subpoenaed, was never called to take the stand. There's an obvious reason for that... The defense was afraid that he would make too credible a witness, without doubt."

HAH HAH!!!

In his ethics trial and in his contempt trial nifong was an abysmally unbelievable witness.; September 1, 2016 at 3:38 AM
Anonymous said...: the latest from hissy fit:

"Walt said: "No that is hideous. Everything else you posted was irrelevant, and indicative of your willful ignorance".............. You find the truth hideous. I asked you about three facts. Facts I wanted the Jury to hear. Facts not suppositions. If the law says that everything that happened between "she stabbed him, he died" is irrelevant "then if the law supposed that then the law is an ass""

You are willfully ignorant of the law and of clinical medicine.

Your wilful ignorance does not mean the jury did not hear the facts.

The jury heard the facts and found crystal guilty.; September 1, 2016 at 3:40 AM
Anonymous said...: more from harr:

" It's the same thing as Judge Catherine Eagles ruling in Harr-III on my alleged "vexatious and frivolous" filing after ruling the same in Harr-II."

Your suits against Duke allege that authorities at Duke conspired to discriminate against you because you supported nifong. You say you sent letters to Duke, to the President of Duke and to the Dean of Duke's LawSchool, informing them of your support of nifong an of your intention to attend the Breyer event.

You have admitted on this blog that you can not establish that any of the authorities at Duke ever read yous letters. You can not establish thatt they knew you were planning to attend, that they were aware of your support of nifong. YOU YOURSELF HAVE ADMITTED YUR SUITS AGAINST DUKE WERE FRIVOLOUS!!!!

"Don't these judges have any integrity?"

Judge Eagles does. You obviously do not.; September 1, 2016 at 4:16 AM
Anonymous said...: from harr:

"with Crystal Mangum's case. Irrefutably the medical examiner committed perjury in her trial and produced a fraudulent autopsy report"

This another iteration of, no one can prove crystal lied about being raped. You make your allegations and if someone does not disprove them, they have merit.

It does not work that way. You have to prove your case. You haven't demonstrated you know how to make a case for perjury.

I remind you, you are no medical expert. You are a minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training, who never achieved medical board certification, and who spent his post medical school career filing and losing frivolous lawsuits. You are totally incapable of determining whether or not an autopsy report isfraudulent.; September 1, 2016 at 4:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 122 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 63 days since the end of June, 131 days since April 23rd, 170 days since the Ides of March and 3,365 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 1, 2016 at 5:22 AM
Anonymous said...: from harr:

"Happy to note that Darryl Howard will get a new trial. Whether or not he is innocent or not is debatable."

Whether or not the Lacrosse defendants are innocent is NOT debatable. There was no crime for them tobe guilty of. You have provided zero evidence of a crime, you have provided zero evidence thar veystal ever told the truth when she alleged she was robbed.; September 1, 2016 at 5:29 AM
Walt said...: A Lawyer wrote: "It's been repeatedly explained to you why a prior judicial ruling by the same judge is not a basis for recusal. You, like Mr. Hyderal, do not even attempt to deal with legal authority adverse to your position; you just pretend to ignore it. Willfully ignorant, the two of you." [Emphasis mine.]

I concur.

Walt-in-Durham; September 1, 2016 at 5:39 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "The reason granted by Judge Hudson, I believe, was rather flimsy..."

Exculpatory evidence withheld from the defense is flimsy? Sounds like you are being willfully ignorant.

...especially when compared with Crystal Mangum's case. Irrefutably the medical examiner committed perjury in her trial and produced a fraudulent autopsy report..."

Again, the no evidence assertion from someone who is not qualified to testify. Further, the defense expert, Dr. Roberts, who is an expert and is qualified to testify, found no fraud.

"... but Judge Hudson chooses to ignore that. He is kowtowing to the Powers=That-Be... going after Nifong and Mangum while protecting Duke University and its hospital."

Supposition without any evidence.

"Hah, after all of the build-up in the media, Mike Nifong, though subpoenaed, was never called to take the stand. There's an obvious reason for that... The defense was afraid that he would make too credible a witness, without doubt."

Your ignorance, willful or not is showing through. Nifong was not necessary once Hudson granted the new hearing on DNA.

".... Don't these judges have any integrity?"

They do, you don't.

Walt-in-Durham; September 1, 2016 at 5:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Let's be clear ...

Judge Hudson ruled that Darryl Howard got a new trial because of the existence of newly discovered DNA evidence that was not known at the time of trial (and could not be known), namely the match to the other individual, who also had motive, opportunity, and the rest.

He did not get into whether the prosecutors did anything wrong - that would have been the point of the MAR, and the State, wisely, made sure that hearing didn't proceed (Hudson has already made it clear he considers this a case of prosecutorial misconduct). So, Howard gets a new trial because of the DNA evidence. The State gets to not have a formal ruling on any misconduct by prosecutors (at least for now - I suspect you will see some motions later).; September 1, 2016 at 6:00 AM
A Lawyer said...: but Judge Hudson chooses to ignore that. He is kowtowing to the Powers=That-Be... going after Nifong and Mangum while protecting Duke University and its hospital.

It's been explained above why any ruling in the Mangum criminal trial would not have had any effect on Duke's civil liability. You ignore that. More willful ignorance.; September 1, 2016 at 8:09 AM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: "Your 5:01 response to Walt is limited to an ad hominem attack ("You find the truth hideous)"..........................I stated a fact and asked a rhetorical question "Is it supposition that he was electively removed from life support?" Walt replied: No that is hideous. Everything else you posted was irrelevant, and indicative of your willful ignorance. I then asked if he found the truth hideous. His response suggested that it was hideous for me to raise such a sensitive issue as Daye's elective removal from life support. Now tell us which one of us made an ad hominen attack , me or Walt. I, like Dr. Harr face ad hominem attacks daily on this blog but only we are censured. Is it not an ad hominem attack to call me intellectually dishonest. Then there is Dr. Anonymous, who line by line responds to our posts with crude ad hominem attacks; September 1, 2016 at 9:29 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "I stated a fact and asked a rhetorical question "Is it supposition that he was electively removed from life support?" Walt replied: No that is hideous."

Obviously you don't know what an ad hominem attack is. Ad hominem attacks the poster, not the idea. I said your claim was hideous, I did not express any opinion about you. Yet another example of Kenyhderal's willful ignorance.

Walt-in-Durham; September 1, 2016 at 10:19 AM
Anonymous said...: from hissy fit:

"JSwift said: "Your 5:01 response to Walt is limited to an ad hominem attack ("You find the truth hideous)"..........................I stated a fact and asked a rhetorical question 'Is it supposition that he was electively removed from life support?'"

Reginald Daye was brain dead and on life support because of a complication of a workup for an intra abdominal infection. He was put at risk for an intra abdominal infection when crystal stabbed him. You are trying to make a case for an intervening cause by remaining willfully ignorant of relevant facts.

"Walt replied: No that is hideous. Everything else you posted was irrelevant, and indicative of your willful ignorance. I then asked if he found the truth hideous. His response suggested that it was hideous for me to raise such a sensitive issue as Daye's elective removal from life support."

What was hideous was for you to raise such an issue while ignoring important, relevant facts, such as Reginald Daye was on life support because crystal stabbed him.

"Now tell us which one of us made an ad hominen attack , me or Walt."

Easy. You

"I, like Dr. Harr face ad hominem attacks daily on this blog but only we are censured."

SSo you do not censure Reginald Daye when you accuse him of being a chronic alcoholic in the face of a preponderance of evidence that he was not?

"Is it not an ad hominem attack to call me intellectually dishonest."

No. you are intelectually dishonest.

"Then there is Dr. Anonymous, who line by line responds to our posts with crude ad hominem attacks"

Wrong. I point ut the truth of your own intellectual dishonesty, how intellectually incapable you are, how you have tried to pass off obvious lies as truth(e.g. nifong did not charge the Lacrosse players with rape, nifomg did not conceal exculpatory evidence) and you decompensate.; September 1, 2016 at 10:26 AM
JSwift said...: Kennyhyderal 9:29 asked: Now tell us which one of us made an ad hominen attack , me or Walt.

You made the ad hominem attack, not Walt.

I then asked if he found the truth hideous.

No, you did not ask a question; you made an assertion: You find the truth hideous.

I found it clear that Walt's comment related to your question: Is it supposition that he was electively removed from life support? and he was objecting that the question was "hideous (I would have used the word "ridiculous" instead). The fact that Daye was electively removed from life support is incontrovertible. No one disagrees. Your decision to attribute an argument to Walt that is different than the one he raised and then to debate that argument can be seen as a straw man argument. A straw man argument is another form of intellectual dishonesty.

Another example of your use of a straw man argument is your characterization that after Daye initially attacked Magnum, he suddenly fled from her in fear of the much smaller woman. As Guiowen and I suggested, our understanding is that Daye and the prosecution argued that after Daye initially attacked Magnum, he released her, he told her to leave the apartment and walked away from her (not in fear, but concluding that he was better off without her). I asked you several times for the evidence that supported your characterization, and you refused. You create a ridiculous version of the prosecution's theory and then attack the ridiculous version you created. That is a straw man argument. If you provide the evidence I requested a long time ago that supports your characterization, I will withdraw my comment that this is a straw man argument.

Is it not an ad hominem attack to call me intellectually dishonest.

Walt, A Lawyer, Abe and I have provided examples of your use of intellectually dishonest arguments. Walt outlined your willful ignorance in great detail as you discussed Welch and ignored the implications of adverse legal precedent. I have added a couple of examples of straw man arguments. It is not necessary to demonstrate that you have used all of the various forms of intellectual dishonesty to support the characterization of you as intellectually dishonest. I believe there has been a fair amount of support provided at this point.

I apologize for the delay in responding to your request, but I have been busy. I will try to provide additional examples in the near future. Your discussion of your mystery rapist hypothesis will provide numerous additional examples of intellectual dishonesty.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 1, 2016 at 12:03 PM
guiowen said...: Here's another:
Kenhyderal comes up with some cute comment, e.g., "doubters are little sadists".
I point out that people such as Galileo and Einstein developed their theories by doubting what others had written before them. Kenny's retort: "Oh, now Guiowen claims he's another Galileo or Einstein."
Later, Kenny says, "Pride is bad." I ask him, what about Lou Gehrig, "Pride of the Yankees"? Kenny's retort; "Oh, now Guiowen claims he's another Lou Gehrig".
At this point I had to ask him whether he understands logic, etc. If indeed he understands logic, then he's very intellectually dishonest.; September 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM
Anonymous said...: A few examples of harr's intellectual dishonesty on this blog:

harr files a lawsuit against Wake County DA Lorin Freeman, seeking as relief that DA Freeman get crystal's conviction overturned and get crystal relieved from prison. Then harr claims the lawsuit had nothing to do with crystal's murder conviction.

harr claims he has not formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of thee Lacrosse players. But just about every time he refers to crystal he describes her as the victim/accuser in the Duke Rape Case.

When the new black panthers conducted a guilt presuming demonstration in Durham after the Lacrosse players had been charged, harr sid they were just expressing their First Amendment Rights. AG Cooper's office investigated the case against the Lacrosse Players, found no evidence that the crime with which they had been charged never happened, something harr never did, then announced that his office believed these men were innocent. harr objected to AG Coopeer expressing his opinion. harr claimed AG Cooper had proclaimed the Lacrosse players innocent. Any one who watched AG's press conference knw the AG did no such thing. Yes the media reported AG Cooper had proclaimed them innocent, and that seems to be what harr seized upon. What AG Cooper actually said was, "We believe these men are innocent."

Then there is harr's take on the election of nifong as Durham DA. the only poll done prior to the election showed harr with support of 20% of the electorate, Freda Black with support of 38% of the electorate. Then the Duke Rape hoax broke. Nifong got more than double 20% of the black vote, more than double 20% of the black vote. harr claimed tat nifong's prosecution of the Lacrosse players almost cost him the election. He bases this claimm on population statistics based on areas of the country not at all similar to Durham County in population demographics.; September 1, 2016 at 1:33 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Kenhyderal comes up with some cute comment, e.g., "doubters are little sadists". I point out that people such as Galileo and Einstein developed their theories by doubting what others had written before them. Kenny's retort: "Oh, now Guiowen claims he's another Galileo or Einstein."
Later, Kenny says, "Pride is bad." I ask him, what about Lou Gehrig, "Pride of the Yankees"? Kenny's retort; "Oh, now Guiowen claims he's another Lou Gehrig".
At this point I had to ask him whether he understands logic, etc. If indeed he understands logic, then he's very intellectually dishonest.......................This apocryphal account of an exchange between him and I never happened. He has to resort to things he thinks I might say to justify calling me intellectually dishonest.; September 1, 2016 at 3:01 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ JSwift So, if I'd of placed a question mark after "You find the truth hideous" the remark would not fit your definition of an ad hominem attack? By the way, ridiculous is hardly a synonym for hideous so suggesting that's what he really meant is miles off the mark. This is all semantics. Saying my views are intellectually dishonest is tantamount to calling me intellectually dishonest and I take that to be an ad hominem attack on me personally. Asserting that he finds the truth hideous or questioning whether he does, which is something that fits better into the context of my remarks, neither is, in my opinion, an ad hominem attack on him. Forgive me if I took both labels hideous and intellectually dishonest as not only an attack on my views but also an ad hominem attack on me; September 1, 2016 at 3:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Let's go over hissy fit's manifestations of intellectual dishonesty, and I apologize for bring repetitive.

hissy fit says the police investigation of crystal's rape allegations was botched. hissy fit was unaware that nifong directed the investigation.

hissy fit says the identities of the men who had deposited the dna on crystal were never determined. hissy fit ignored that nifong had custody of the evidence and concealed it. hissy fit claimed nifong did not conceal the evidence.

Then hissy fit claimed nifong did not charge the Lacrosse players with rape but with sexual assault and did not identify the men who left their DNA on crystal because he believed he could convict lacrosse players of sexual assault without DNA evidence. hissy fit said, further, that nifong believed if he charged lacrosse players with sexual assault they would identify the real rapists, eliminating the need for nifong to identify who had left their DNA.

That brings us to the mystery rapists. hissy fit unknown party goers, who were not mrmbers of the Lacrosse team had raped crystal. A list of party attendees was given to the police. The DNA found on crystal did not match the DNA found on crystal. When asked for proof there were unidentified party attendees, hissy fit said an entity named kilgo told him an anonymous lacrosse player had told him he had witnessed unidentified non lacrosse player attendees raping crystal. At the time hissy fit made the assertion, he admitted could not verify anyone told him that. kilgo, whoever or whatever kilgo was has vanished and said anonymous lacrosse player has not materialized.

hissy fit is a compendium of intellectual dishonesty.; September 1, 2016 at 3:37 PM
Anonymous said...: from hissy fit:

"At this point I had to ask him whether he understands logic, etc. If indeed he understands logic, then he's very intellectually dishonest"

hissy fit admits he is intellectually dishonest.; September 1, 2016 at 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: more from hissy fit:

"This is all semantics. Saying my views are intellectually dishonest is tantamount to calling me intellectually dishonest and I take that to be an ad hominem attack on me personally."

You are intellectually dishonest. The truth is not an ad hominem attack.; September 1, 2016 at 3:40 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Here is something from early February 2015. I'm sorry that you've forgotten it entirely.
I could include more from those days, but I think this should be enough to give the lie to your statement at 3:01

Blogger kenhyderal said...

Yeah and I'm proud to be a Canadian. You're digging yourself in deeper Guiowen. There is a big difference between the pride expressed by Lou Gehrig and your statement of superiority ("Thank God I'm not like that idiot kenhyderal). Show a little humility and admit that your expression of superiority is the very thing The Lord was abhorring

February 6, 2015 at 9:52 PM
Blogger guiowen said...

Dear Kenny,
Just so you see what happens. You made a universal statement: "pride is evil". If you knew any logic, you would know that a single counterexample suffices to show that your statement is incorrect. This does not mean that all the counterexamples are the same. Simply that your statement is incorrect. I must conclude that EITHER you don't understand logic OR you do but are trying to pull one over on us: "Oh, you cannot be a counterexample because you're not Lou Gehrig."
In either case, whether you don't understand logic, or because you're trying to pull one over on us, you are a sorry person. In either case, I'm just happy I"m not like you.
I let you get away with something like this some years ago. I don't plan to do so again.

February 7, 2015 at 3:16 AM Delete; September 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM
Anonymous said...: hissy fit, how's this for intellectual dishonesty:

nifong conceals the DNA evidence rather than identify the sources.

nifong orders an improper lineup procedure be done to force crystal to identify as her rapists men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on crystal, i.e. men who could not have possibly raped crystal.

Then nifong has them charged with rape.

You claim nifong did not charge them with rape

nifong does not have anyone in his office interview crystal until months after the alleged crime allegedly happened. When someone finally interviews her, she has changed her story to a story which does not support a charge of rape.

Then nifong drops the rape charges he originally had filed. You argue that is the same as not charging the lacrosse players with rape

Then you say nifong was fighting for justice for crystal.

Intellectual dishonesty, thy name is kenhyderal.; September 1, 2016 at 4:18 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
I can only conclude that EITHER you forget everything you did 19 months ago, OR you are intellectually dishonest.
In either case, you are a sorry excuse for a person.; September 1, 2016 at 4:29 PM
guiowen said...: Come to think of it, I shouldn't have called you intellectually dishonest. I should have called you a plain liar.; September 1, 2016 at 5:28 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny: So, if I'd of placed a question mark after "You find the truth hideous" the remark would not fit your definition of an ad hominem attack? By the way, ridiculous is hardly a synonym for hideous so suggesting that's what he really meant is miles off the mark. This is all semantics. Saying my views are intellectually dishonest is tantamount to calling me intellectually dishonest and I take that to be an ad hominem attack on me personally. Asserting that he finds the truth hideous or questioning whether he does, which is something that fits better into the context of my remarks, neither is, in my opinion, an ad hominem attack on him. Forgive me if I took both labels hideous and intellectually dishonest as not only an attack on my views but also an ad hominem attack on me

Where to begin?

First, I do not believe that taking what is otherwise an ad hominem attack and turning it nominally into a question means that it is no longer an ad hominem attack. For example, if I responded to one of your posts by asserting that no one should listen to you because you were a mass murderer, that would clearly be an ad hominem attack. I would be attacking you rather than criticizing your argument. Similarly, if I responded to one of your posts, not with an assertion, but by nominally asking you if you were a mass murderer and why I should believe you, I would think that should also be viewed as an ad hominem attack. Although I am no longer making an assertion (at least nominally), I am really doing so in the form of a question. (I should note that I am not making this assertion or raising this question. I am using this only as a theoretical example.)

Second, in my suggestion that I would have responded with the word "ridiculous" rather than "hideous," I was not "suggesting" that was Walt's meaning or that they were synonyms as you suggested. You obviously are confused once again. Walt and I are separate individuals and we have our own thoughts. I expressed mine, and Walt expressed his. I do not take responsibility for his posts, and I expect that he does not take responsibility for mine.

Third, I do not believe that anyone is saying that your "views" are intellectually dishonest. We are saying that your arguments are intellectually dishonest. In order to support this statement, Walt and I have provided a number of specific examples of intellectually dishonest arguments you have made.

Fourth, you statement (or question) that Walt found the truth hideous was, as I noted earlier, a straw man argument. That was not Walt's comment, and your attribution of a thought that was not his that you then attacked is a straw man argument. As I noted earlier, a straw man argument is a form of intellectual dishonesty. If you have comprehension problems and misunderstood Walt's statement (as apparently no other reader on the blog had that problem), then I concede that your use of a straw man may have been unintentional. You appear to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith and thus assume the worst intention. This may lead to your comprehension problems.

Fifth, I note that the statement that you frequently employ intellectually dishonest arguments is not an ad hominem attack because those making that statement have provided significant evidence to support that claim.

I hope that this is helpful to you.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 1, 2016 at 6:11 PM
kenhyderal said...: Come on Walt tell us what you really meant. What was hideous about the claim I made that it was a fact Reginald Daye, already brain dead, died because of an elective removal from life support. JSwift is making a valiant effort to cover up for you. You said "No that is hideous. Everything else you posted was irrelevant, and indicative of your willful ignorance. You have been educated and refused to learn. There is nothing left for you but willful ignorance"............. Hideous (repulsive-repellant-revolting) It sounded like name calling to me.; September 1, 2016 at 9:03 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ JSwift. The arguments I make stem from sincerely held beliefs. To me saying that arguments are intellectually dishonest also suggest that my views are as well; September 1, 2016 at 9:07 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Guiowen: In the context of the discussion between us the pride I characterized as sinful; one of the seven deadly sins, in fact, is different from the pride that New York Yankees' Ball Club Owners, Players, and Fans had for the talented and brave member Lou Gehrig. There is a great difference between the kind of pride that God hates and the kind of pride we feel about a job well done by someone we admire or even pride in our self for an accomplishment or a job well done. The former looks down on those they deem inferior.; September 1, 2016 at 9:23 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
You still lied in claiming that we had not had that exchange. Don't try to wiggle your way out of it.
You are, moreover, essentially proving my former statement, namely, that either you don't understand logic, or are trying to pull a fast one. In either case, you're a sorry excuse for a person.; September 1, 2016 at 9:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 121 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 64 days since the end of June, 132 days since April 23rd, 171 days since the Ides of March and 3,366 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 2, 2016 at 3:11 AM
Anonymous said...: from hissy fiy:

"What was hideous about the claim I made that it was a fact Reginald Daye, already brain dead, died because of an elective removal from life support."

What was hideous was the intellectual dishonessty which accompanied your statement, your denial of the fact that Reginald Daye rndedup brain dead and on life support was a complication of the stab wound crystal inflicted on him.; September 2, 2016 at 3:21 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny stated: The arguments I make stem from sincerely held beliefs. To me saying that arguments are intellectually dishonest also suggest that my views are as well.

Logical fallacy.; September 2, 2016 at 4:57 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny stated: Come on Walt tell us what you really meant. What was hideous about the claim I made that it was a fact Reginald Daye, already brain dead, died because of an elective removal from life support

Straw man argument. Your straw man argument has already been identified, yet you persist in debating an argument you attributed to Walt rather than the argument he actually made.

In addition, this is also willful ignorance. Walt and I each explained his statement. You ignore those explanations and ask for another.

. JSwift is making a valiant effort to cover up for you.

Willful ignorance. I explained my statement. I made no attempt to "cover up" Walt's statement.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 2, 2016 at 5:09 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Come on Walt tell us what you really meant. What was hideous about the claim I made that it was a fact Reginald Daye, already brain dead, died because of an elective removal from life support."

It is hideous to think that the criminal should have the power of suffering or death over her victim. Arguing for her to have yet another chance to beat justice by forcing the man to suffer ad infinitum is hideous.

Walt-in-Durham; September 2, 2016 at 5:26 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " Forgive me if I took both labels hideous and intellectually dishonest as not only an attack on my views but also an ad hominem attack on me"

More willful ignorance from Kenny.

Walt-in-Durham; September 2, 2016 at 5:35 AM
JSwift said...: Walt wrote: It is hideous to think that the criminal should have the power of suffering or death over her victim. Arguing for her to have yet another chance to beat justice by forcing the man to suffer ad infinitum is hideous.

I believe this is a straw man argument on your part. I do not believe that Kenny was advancing the argument that Magnum should be excused for Daye's death because Daye died only after having been electively removed from life support, a decision in which Magnum had no input. Indeed, he asked Is it supposition that Daye was rendered brain dead by an errant esophageal intubation?

This question is yet another example of willful ignorance on Kenny's part. The decision to remove Daye from life support is irrelevant in determining Mangum's responsibility. You were making the argument that in lieu of providing evidence to support his claims, Kenny relies instead on supposition of what the evidence would have been. In addition, he supplements his suppositions with facts (i.e., Daye died after having been electively removed from life support) that are irrelevant to the legal issue.

Having said that, I note that Sidney made precisely this argument (about the removal from life support) in his initial legal filings. In his statement of support for Sidney's efforts, Kenny failed to criticize this argument. Faced with criticism, Sidney eventually stopped making this argument, but neither he nor Kenny has ever disavowed this argument.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 2, 2016 at 7:15 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Walt's comment, to which I use replied, highlights a double standard on your part. As you recall, a double standard is another form of intellectual dishonesty.

You have insisted that all readers of this blog object to the noxious posts of the racist troll (or who pretends to be a racist). Yet you offered support to Sidney when he was making the argument that Magnum should be excused for Daye's death because Daye died only after having been electively removed from life support, a decision in which Magnum had no input. I agree with Walt that "It is hideous to think that the criminal should have the power of suffering or death over her victim. Arguing for her to have yet another chance to beat justice by forcing the man to suffer ad infinitum is hideous."

Will you now disavow this argument?

John D. Smkth
New York, NY; September 2, 2016 at 7:31 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: " is hideous to think that "the" (a) criminal should have the power of suffering or death over "her" (their) victim. Arguing for "her" (them) to have "yet" another chance to beat justice by forcing the "man" (person) to suffer ad infinitum is hideous"....................................................... With the corrections I made to make the statement general I agree. I never ever suggested to keep brain dead Daye alive to thwart a murder charge. A cause of death needs to be sequential. Dr. Nicholls left out all of the sequences and in order to decide on the intervening sole cause of death as outline by Judge Ridgeway they needed to hear the complete sequence of events not the "she stabbed him he died"; September 2, 2016 at 9:34 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "You still lied in claiming that we had not had that exchange"......... No, Guiowen I do not lie. I had forgotten that exchange and in the context you raised it on this thread it bore little relationship to the original context. That made bringing it back to memory difficult. Don't be so quick to use the ad hominem attack "you are a liar"; September 2, 2016 at 9:45 AM
Anonymous said...: from hissy fit:

"A cause of death needs to be sequential. Dr. Nicholls left out all of the sequences and in order to decide on the intervening sole cause of death as outline by Judge Ridgeway they needed to hear the complete sequence of events not the 'she stabbed him he died'"

More of your intellectual dishonesty. The complete sequence of events did show that Reginald Daye died because crystal stabbed him. That you willfully choose to distort the facts is irrelevant.; September 2, 2016 at 10:01 AM
Anonymous said...: from hissy fit:

"Guiowen said: "You still lied in claiming that we had not had that exchange"......... No, Guiowen I do not lie. I had forgotten that exchange and in the context you raised it on this thread it bore little relationship to the original context. That made bringing it back to memory difficult. Don't be so quick to use the ad hominem attack 'you are a liar'"

hissy fit again distorts the facts in a vain attempt to implement personal posterior camouflage.; September 2, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

You are a liar. It is not an ad hominem attack to call someone who repeatedly lies a liar.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 2, 2016 at 10:15 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
You might have said, "I don't remember this." Instead, what did you say?

"This apocryphal account of an exchange between him and I never happened. He has to resort to things he thinks I might say to justify calling me intellectually dishonest."

Well, maybe your m4mory is giving out on you. Who knows? In any case, who can believe anything you say?; September 2, 2016 at 10:28 AM
guiowen said...: Sorry, that should have been "memory", not "m4mory".; September 2, 2016 at 10:35 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny wrote: The arguments I make stem from sincerely held beliefs. To me saying that arguments are intellectually dishonest also suggest that my views are as well.

I earlier characterized this statement as a logical fallacy. I thought it would be helpful to you for me to expand on my thoughts.

Whether or not a point of view is valid or not can be independent of whether the arguments used by a proponent to support that point of view are intellectually honest or dishonest.

For example, consider capital punishment. (For the record, I oppose capital punishment for reasons that I will not discuss here and are not relevant to the discussion of intellectual dishonesty.)

Like many, if not most, complex issues, I believe there can be multiple valid points of view. Despite my opposition to capital punishment, I recognize that both support for and opposition to capital punishment can be valid points of view. I respect that someone who disagrees with me can have a valid point of view. A conclusion that only one's own viewpoint has any validity is frequently an indication of bias.

Having agreed that both support for and opposition to capital punishment can be valid points of view, I note that the arguments provided by a supporter of either point of view can be either intellectually honest or intellectually dishonest. I can agree with a conclusion, but find the argumentation to be intellectually dishonest; similarly, I can disagree with a conclusion, but find the argumentation to be intellectually honest. A point of view is not necessarily invalid because its proponent used intellectually dishonest arguments in supporting that viewpoint. (For example, others may have provided an intellectually honest support for that point of view that provides validity.)

Do you understand why the statement I quoted is fallacious?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 2, 2016 at 10:47 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny wrote: an you give any example of willful ignorance, double standards, false analogies, straw man arguments and logical fallacies I have made so I can attempt to refute these gratuitous charges.

Since you made this request two days ago, Walt and I have provided numerous examples of various forms of intellectual dishonesty you have employed in your posts.

I note that you in general have declined to "refute these gratuitous charges." Your responses frequently have employed intellectually dishonest arguments.

I do not intend to provide other examples of your intellectual dishonesty until you have responded to the examples provided to date.

Your complaint that I apply a more onerous standard to you and Sidney in identifying your intellectual dishonesty is valid. Part of the more onerous standard I apply to you and sidney is due to the fact that both you and Sidney have used intellectually dishonest arguments in your replies directed to me. Others in general have not. Part of the more onerous standard is due to my conclusion that you and Sidney rely on intellectually dishonest arguments to a far greater extent that almost all other posters on this board.

I agree with you that Dr. Anonymous' replies to you and Sidney have become tiresome. I believe he uses personal attacks to too great an extent. His line-by-line analysis of your comments is unnecessary. However, I can understand his frustration from the constant intellectual dishonesty to which he is responding. However, in Dr. Anonymous' defense, he is generally more willing than either you or Sidney to provide credible evidence to support his claims (his mistake on the esophageal intubation notwithstanding).

Before you joined this board (at least in your current incarnation), many of the posters attempted to engage in honest debate and were rebuffed by Sidney's refusal to do so. I believe Sidney deserve much of the blame for the poor quality of discussion on this board.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 2, 2016 at 11:36 AM
guiowen said...: JSwift:
Maybe Kenny really believes everything he says. Perhaps he's suffering form an attack of Alzheimer's disease? Then he wouldn't be intellectually dishonest.; September 2, 2016 at 12:52 PM
JSwift said...: Guiowen,

I have noted only that he uses intellectually dishonest devices in his arguments. That makes his arguments intellectually dishonest. He may indeed be completely oblivious to the nature of his arguments despite the criticism he has received. That would arguably make his reliance on intellectually dishonest arguments unintentional, but I believe that it does not make the arguments themselves intellectually honest.

He appears to believe that because he feels strongly abut his beliefs (or at least claims to feel strongly about them), he is justified in making any argument he deems necessary. In other words, the ends justify the means. However, he fails to recognize that his arguments are completely ineffective. He has succeeded only in destroying his credibility; no one believes anything he says about anything.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 2, 2016 at 1:01 PM
kenhyderal said...: Abe said: You are a liar. It is not an ad hominem attack to call someone who repeatedly lies a liar."................ Here we go again. OK Abe give me some examples of "lies" I have repeatedly told.; September 2, 2016 at 1:06 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

I have called you out on some of your lies. Others have, too. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go play this game with you. You repeatedly lie. That makes you a liar.

In addition to being a liar you are a lazy thinker and intellectually dishonest.

You post here with an agenda. You have no interest in having a discussion, debating or getting to the truth. You make things up or twist facts to support your pre-ordained conclusions. Truth be damned. You engage in pettifoggery. You are pedantic. You refuse to answer direct questions or engage in honest discussion. You insult, malign and impute dishonest motives to people who have different opinions.

It's no wonder nobody here takes you or anything you have to say seriously.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 2, 2016 at 1:30 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
What about the time you denied having a certain exchange with me? Was that a lie, or are you simply suffering from an attack of Alzheimer's disease?; September 2, 2016 at 1:32 PM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift: :Before you joined this board (at least in your current incarnation".................Unlike you I have posted under my google account user name since I joined the board. Your innuendo that I post anonymously or as someone other then who I say I am is not appreciated. As a friend of Crystal I see it as a duty to defend her against anonymous attackers. I have nothing to hide about doing that. I know Crystal is an honest and sincere person who can not defend herself. On her behalf I must stand up to the bullying that goes on here.; September 2, 2016 at 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: from hissy fit:

"Here we go again. OK Abe give me some examples of "lies" I have repeatedly told."

nifong did not charge the Lacrosse defendants with rape.

No complete list of party attendees was ever compiled.

Mystrty rapists raped crystal at the lacrosse party.

nifong did not conceal the DNA evidence.

And you can not verify that anyone ever told you that alacrosse player raped crystal at the party.; September 2, 2016 at 2:10 PM
Anonymous said...: from hissy fit:

"As a friend of Crystal I see it as a duty to defend her against anonymous attackers."

No one ever attacked crystal. Thry have revealed te truth about her.

"I have nothing to hide about doing that. I know Crystal is an honest and sincere person who can not defend herself. On her behalf I must stand up to the bullying that goes on here."

Pointing out that you have admitted that you can not provide any evidence that she told the truth about being raped is not bullying her.

If she is sso honest, why did she falsely accuse innocent men of raping her.; September 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Fair enough. I apologize for my innuendo that you have posted here either anonymously or under a different pseudonym.

Are you ready to respond to examples of intellectually dishonest arguments Walt and I provided that you had earlier termed "gratuitous charges" or will you admit the criticism is sometimes valid?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 2, 2016 at 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...: for hissy tit:

It has been part f the public record foe years that nifong did charge the lacrosse players with first degree rape and did conceal tthe DNAevidence from crystal's rapr kit. If you did not know that, you were ignorant. If you did know and then made our statements anyway, you lied.; September 2, 2016 at 2:59 PM
kenhyderal said...: Abe said: "I have neither the time nor the inclination to go play this game with you. You repeatedly lie. That makes you a liar. In addition to being a liar you are a lazy thinker and intellectually dishonest" Too busy eh? Perhaps you'll go with the examples Dr. Anonymous posted on your behalf. Lazy thinker eh! That's a new pejorative to label me with,. Maybe your mouthpiece Dr. Anonymous can find examples
of that for you as well.; September 2, 2016 at 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: for hissy fit.

You said there was no complete list of lacrosse party attendees. There was a list , and both prosecution and defense agreed everyone who had attended the party had been identified. Your "evidence"that there were unidentified party attendees is the statement of kilgo, that some anonymous lacrosse player told him that unidentifird party attendees raped crystal. You have admitted you can not verify that kilgo ever told you that. You have zero evidence that there were any unidentified party attendees were there. rgo, you have zero evidence that is true.; September 2, 2016 at 3:06 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr.Anonymous said: "nifong did not charge the Lacrosse defendants with rape.
He dropped that charge
No complete list of party attendees was ever compiled.
The key word here being "complete"
Mystrty rapists raped crystal at the lacrosse party.
I have never ever used the words mystery rapists.
nifong did not conceal the DNA evidence.
Former DA Nifong turned over all evidence to the defence.; September 2, 2016 at 3:10 PM
Anonymous said...: from hissy fit:

"Abe said: "I have neither the time nor the inclination to go play this game with you. You repeatedly lie. That makes you a liar. In addition to being a liar you are a lazy thinker and intellectually dishonest" Too busy eh? Perhaps you'll go with the examples Dr. Anonymous posted on your behalf. Lazy thinker eh! That's a new pejorative to label me with,. Maybe your mouthpiece Dr. Anonymous can find examples".

I will repeat. You say there were unidentified party attendees who raped crystal. Your "evidence" is: supposedly no complete list of party attendees was ever compiled; unidentified male DNA was found on crystal; kilgo told you that an unidentified Lacrosse player told you he had witnessed unidentified party attendees raping crystal; whitish fluid was found in crystal's genital tract which Dr. Julie Manly thought was semen

A list of party attendees was compiled. Both prosecution and defense agreed all attendees had been identified. The male DNA found on crystal did not match the DNA of any party attendee. You can not verify that the entity known as kilgo ever told you anything. The rape kit tested negative for alkaline phosphatase; it would have tested positive if that fluid been semen. So far as Doctor Manly, you identified her as an experienced gynecologist; she was a 1st year Emergency Medicine Resident.

You may not want to refer to that as sloppy thinking. It is not thinking at all. It is fabtasizing based on willful ignorance of the eevidence.; September 2, 2016 at 3:21 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "You said there was no complete list of lacrosse party attendees. There was a list , and both prosecution and defense agreed everyone who had attended the party had been identified"................The only person I know of who has ever seen this list is JSwift, who, it seems, doesn't have time to transcribe it; September 2, 2016 at 3:25 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote:"Dr.Anonymous said: "nifong did not charge the Lacrosse defendants with rape." If we were using the WAPO pinochocio scale this would get two. Partially true, partially false. The Grand Jury charged, but only after Nifong's ADA presented the evidence to them.

"He dropped that charge" Three pinochios. Partially true, mostly false, Nifong did drop the rape charges and substituted sexual assault. But, long after it was clear that he had no evidence to support either charge. Anyone who has read this forum knows that Rule 3.8 imposes on the prosecutor a continuing duty to prosecute only charges for which he has probable cause. Once the second round of DNA evidence came back, there was no probable cause. Under Rule 3.8 Nifong's duty was to dismiss.

"No complete list of party attendees was ever compiled." Four pinochios. Yes, a complete list was proffered by several witnesses.

"The key word here being "complete"" Four pinochios. As you were not present, you cannot refute the issue of completeness. Hearsay is not evidence. It is inherently unreliable. Second hand hearsay is even more unreliable.

"Mystrty rapists raped crystal at the lacrosse party.
"I have never ever used the words mystery rapists." Two pinochios. Partially true, partially false. A fast search does not turn up any instances of Kenny using the term "mystery rapists." However, that is the substance of your argument. Three, or more people unknown raped Crystal. The facts are, all the people she accused were cleared by the DNA evidence.

"nifong did not conceal the DNA evidence." Four pinochios. At the May hearing, Nifong was asked if he had any other evidence. This was before the DNASI evidence had been turned over. His answer was an unequivocal "No." We have since learned that before that hearing Nifong received a briefing from Dr. Obfuscation as well as a preliminary report. We also know Nifong received numerous documents (thousands of pages) long before he turned them over to the defense. Keep in mind the statute under which Nifong took the DNA tests requires immediate disclosure of the evidence.

"Former DA Nifong turned over all evidence to the defence." Three pinochios. Partially true because Nifong did, eventually turn over the evidence to the defense. After he had lied to a Superior Court Judge about its existence and long after the NTO required its turn over. Thus, this statement is mostly false.

Overall, a great example of the use of half truths. A form of propaganda that is not particularly good advocacy.; September 2, 2016 at 3:53 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
If Nifong dropped the rape charges, it's because he had filed these charges.
Is that too difficult for you to understand?; September 2, 2016 at 3:54 PM
Anonymous said...: from hissy fit:

"Dr.Anonymous said: 'nifong did not charge the Lacrosse defendants with rape.'
He dropped that charge".

More sloppy thinking from hissy fit.To drop the charges of rape, nifong had to first charge them with rape. hissy fit said nifong did not charge them with rape.

"No complete list of party attendees was ever compiled.
The key word here being "complete"

I repeat, both prosecution and defense agreed everyone who was present at the party had been identified. You claim the list was not complete because, you allege, kilgo supposedly told you that an anonymous lacrosse player told him there were unidentified attendees. You have admitted you can not verify that kilgo ever told you that. In and of itself, that renders it not evidence. Further, said anonymous lacrosse player has not materialized in over 10 years.That is rather strong evidence said anonymous lacrosse player does not exist. Your speculative explanations as to why he never materialized does not establish his existence.

"Mystrty rapists raped crystal at the lacrosse party.
I have never ever used the words mystery rapists."

You have claimed there were unidentified party attendees who raped crystal. Read my previous passage. You have zero evidence of any unidentified party attendees. That is on top of zero evidence crystal was raped in the first place.

"nifong did not conceal the DNA evidence.
Former DA Nifong turned over all evidence to the defence."

nifong got the evidence in April of 2006. The world did not become aware of that evidence until the defense attorneys got brian meehan to admit under oath thathe had given the evidence to nifong in April of 2006, and that he and nifong agreed not to report that evidence to te defense. Your willfull ignorance is glaringly obvious. That is concealment of evidence.

I remind you, the evidence came from the NTO obtained by the DA's office. North Carolina lw required the DA's office, headed by nifong., to turn over a report of all results in a timely manner, as soon as they got the results. Months after he got the results, and in response to a court order obtained by the defense, months after he got the results, nifong turned over thousands of pages of raw data, not the findings that data had yielded. Again, that is grossly obvious concealment of evidence. And you remain willfully ignorant.; September 2, 2016 at 4:24 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny states: The only person I know of who has ever seen this list is JSwift, who, it seems, doesn't have time to transcribe it

This statement as written is false. I assume what you meant was "the only person who posts on this board who has ever seen this list..."

The following people almost certainly have seen the lists: the lacrosse captains who provided the lists; Gottlieb, Himan and other DPD officers; Nifong; the defense attorneys; probably the attorneys who represented the non-indicted players and the non-indicted players; the journalists who reviewed the files (including at least Joe Neff, Duff Wilson, Dan Abrams); the special prosecutors; the State Bar disciplinary board; the staff who compiled the documents for Nifong's disciplinary hearing: Nifong's defense counsel for his disciplinary hearing... I am sure there are others.

I am starting a new job. You declined to honor a request I made of you. As a result, I have chosen to spend time on this board documenting your use of intellectually dishonest arguments.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 2, 2016 at 4:36 PM
Anonymous said...: hissy fit, check this out:

https://mugdom.com/products/medicallimited-edition-please-do-not-confuse-your-google-search-with-my-medical-degree-11oz-mug?utm_source=USA&utm_medium=WC-ATC&utm_term=FOS-MedicalSchools&utm_content=DTNF-1&utm_campaign=006-Medical-Degree; September 2, 2016 at 4:46 PM
JSwift said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; September 2, 2016 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Why does anyone still argue or care about the Lacrosse case? It's closed and irrelevant. Move on.; September 2, 2016 at 5:09 PM
JSwift said...: Dr. Anonymous wrote: Both prosecution and defense agreed all attendees had been identified.

I do not believe the Nifong prosecution ever agreed that the list was complete. They demonstrated no interest in conducting a bona fide investigation.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 2, 2016 at 5:11 PM
Anonymous said...: For JSwift.

Point is taken. You have made me think.

this also for hissy fit.

Let's put it this way.

It has been established with 100% certainty that crystal did not engage in sexual intercourse in the time interval between her leaving the party and her evaluation for rape. The DNA had to be deposited either at the party or before the party.

crystal alleged that a gang rape, in which multiple assailants, not using condoms, penetrated her and had ejaculated on her at the party. nifong's case, judging from nifong's public statements, was was that crystal had been raped at the party.

If nifong really believed that crystal had been raped at the party, would he not have made a concerted effort to identify who had left the DNA? nifong made a zero effort to identify who had left their DNA on crystal. Does that indicate that nifong believed the DNA had been deposited at the party? Or does that indicate nifong believed the DNA had been deposited before the party? If it had been proven that the DNA had been deposited before the party, that would have shot down nifong's case.

Yes nifong did not conduct a real. Everything indicated nifong did really not believe in any rape happened at the party. That, more than anything discredits hissy fit's anonymous rapists story.; September 2, 2016 at 6:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey hissy fit:

Read my response to JSwift's comment.

You say nifong was fighting for justice fior crystal.

nifong's faiure to make any effort to identify who had left their DNAon crystal shows he did not really believe crystal had been raped at the party.

Not eve nifong would have subscribed to your unidentified party attendee rapist clap trap. Had nifong believed crystal had been raped, he would have made a concerted effort to identify who had left their DNA. As I have shown you, nifong concealed the evidence rather than make an effort to identify it.; September 2, 2016 at 6:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 2, 2016 at 5:09 PM:

"Why does anyone still argue or care about the Lacrosse case? It's closed and irrelevant. Move on."

In just about all his filings, harr refers to crystal as the "victim/accuser" in the Duke Rape Case, and has argued that her prosecution for the murder of Reginald Daye was a vendetta driven prosecution carried out because of her role in what harr calls the Duke Rape Case.; September 2, 2016 at 6:43 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Dr. Anonymous: Charge and charge dropped equal no charge.; September 2, 2016 at 9:16 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
No, that is not true. If you tell a lie, and then, 6 months later, admit it's not true, you still told a lie. If you insult someone, and, 6 months later, you apologize, it;s still an insult. If you steal some money, and then return it 6 months later, it's still stealing.
This is why all of us feel that you are intellectually dishonest. (Well, it's not the only reason, but it is one reason.); September 2, 2016 at 9:53 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anonymous September 2, 2016 at 5:09 PM:

"Why does anyone still argue or care about the Lacrosse case? It's closed and irrelevant. Move on."

In just about all his filings, harr refers to crystal as the "victim/accuser" in the Duke Rape Case, and has argued that her prosecution for the murder of Reginald Daye was a vendetta driven prosecution carried out because of her role in what harr calls the Duke Rape Case.

The Powers-That-Be are, unfortunately, a very vindictive lot... and I am sure they take pleasure in exercising it. Darryl Howard is fortunate that Mike Nifong prosecuted his case, otherwise it would have received no attention and he would still be incarcerated and serving his full sentence. However, the weak case against the prosecution was the best the State and media could find in the Nifong cases about which to criticize. If you will have noted, almost all of the media coverage about Mr. Howard focused on Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case... even though Mr. Nifong was never called to testify. That is undoubtedly because he would've been too credible a witness.

For Barry Scheck to recommend that all of Nifong's cases be reviewed was for audience benefit, as most commenters on this blog site probably all agree that his cases have already been scrutinized with a fine toothed magnifying glass.

And, the P-T-Bs especially want to sock it to Crystal Mangum. They surely have no greater pleasure than destroying a poor, helpless, black female.; September 3, 2016 at 2:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT UPDATE!!

Just wanted to let everyone know that I have been extremely busy... with lawsuits, sharlogs, letter-writing, advocacy work, etc. This Labor Day weekend, I will have my nose to my keyboard, laboring on the next sharlog. I hope to have it completed and posted the day following Labor Day at the latest.

Hope that everyone has a great and safe Labor Day weekend.

As you were.; September 3, 2016 at 2:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 120 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 65 days since the end of June, 133 days since April 23rd, 172 days since the Ides of March and 3,367 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 3, 2016 at 4:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid - we already explained why Nifong was not called to testify - they didn't get to the MAR portion, which was based on prosecutorial misconduct. There were 2 hearings:

DNA - which he had no role in, the only issue was whether new, favorable DNA had been found, and the MAR - based on his misconduct.

Howard won a new trial on the DNA. The State said they were going to appeal, so Howard's attorneys said they were going to proceed on the MAR and call Nifong unless the State withdrew their appeal.

After lunch, the State withdrew their appeal. It was the State that made sure Nifong never took the stand.

Of course, facts don't matter to you - you will continue to spew your bullshit and lies, but just know that, once again, you are demonstrably wrong and lying in what you say - and since everyone knows it, but you refuse to acknowledge it, you continue to shred whatever tiny sliver of credibility you may have left.; September 3, 2016 at 4:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 119 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 66 days since the end of June, 134 days since April 23rd, 173 days since the Ides of March and 3,368 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 4, 2016 at 5:22 AM
A Lawyer said...: It was the State that made sure Nifong never took the stand.

Dr. Harr knows that; it was explained by Walt upthread. Dr. Harr is continuing his usual practice of repeating false claims after they have been debunked. (see, for instance, his repeated insistence that larceny of a chose in action can be a predicate for felony murder, or that a pretrial motion could have been made to dismiss that charge.) Call it willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, it's the way he argues.; September 4, 2016 at 8:22 AM
JSwift said...: I see that DA Roger Echols has decided not to retry Howard and has filed to dismiss charges.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 4, 2016 at 2:36 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: As it should be.; September 4, 2016 at 9:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 118 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 67 days since the end of June, 135 days since April 23rd, 174 days since the Ides of March and 3,369 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 5, 2016 at 6:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 117 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 68 days since the end of June, 136 days since April 23rd, 175 days since the Ides of March and 3,370 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 6, 2016 at 12:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Where's that new sh(it)log?; September 6, 2016 at 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 116 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 69 days since the end of June, 137 days since April 23rd, 176 days since the Ides of March and 3,371 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 7, 2016 at 2:14 AM
t said...: Kenhyderal, Please help me! This fellow skonno shooto is forcing me to 890-s09dry8g[ht5t; September 7, 2016 at 3:11 PM
sconosciuto said...: Kenhyderal, non preoccuparti! Il tuo amico e con noi.; September 7, 2016 at 3:13 PM
Inconnu said...: Je suis navre', Kenhyderal, mais je ne suis pas arrive' a liberer ton ami le Gros Kilgo. Ce type sconosciuto ne m'a meme pas permis de lui parler. Je te prie, s'il t'est possible, de venir tout de suite a Durham.; September 7, 2016 at 10:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 115 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 70 days since the end of June, 138 days since April 23rd, 177 days since the Ides of March and 3,372 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 8, 2016 at 4:59 AM
Anonymous said...: C'mon Sid, drop that sh(it)log!; September 8, 2016 at 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 114 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 71 days since the end of June, 139 days since April 23rd, 178 days since the Ides of March and 3,373 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 9, 2016 at 3:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid has been absent for 6 days and he still hasn't posted the new shlog he promised to post by 9/5 at the latest.

When Sid goes silent like this it usually means that he has suffered a serious legal setback that he doesn't want to talk about. Does anyone know if anything has happened recently in any of Sid's lolsuits (including the MAR/Habeas Corpus Petition he filed in Mangum's name)?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 9, 2016 at 8:04 AM
guiowen said...: He certainly hasn't had any good news. If he had, he'd be out here asking us what color crying towel we want.; September 9, 2016 at 10:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
He certainly hasn't had any good news. If he had, he'd be out here asking us what color crying towel we want.

gui, mon ami, and other commenters,

So sorry for not commenting recently... but have been extremely busy. Am currently in the process of trying to upload another sharlog. Took about a week longer to finish than I anticipated. Also have been very busy following up on other promising avenues. I believe I am on the brink of a breakthrough.

By all means, stand ready to submit orders for crying towels.; September 9, 2016 at 8:04 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid has been absent for 6 days and he still hasn't posted the new shlog he promised to post by 9/5 at the latest.

When Sid goes silent like this it usually means that he has suffered a serious legal setback that he doesn't want to talk about. Does anyone know if anything has happened recently in any of Sid's lolsuits (including the MAR/Habeas Corpus Petition he filed in Mangum's name)?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe.

Very strange and irregular... the handling of Mangum's MAR. Unfortunately, the Clerk of Court for the Middle District refuses to intelligently communicate with Crystal Mangum. Who knows what the hail is going on regarding the filing.; September 9, 2016 at 8:08 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
It was the State that made sure Nifong never took the stand.

Dr. Harr knows that; it was explained by Walt upthread. Dr. Harr is continuing his usual practice of repeating false claims after they have been debunked. (see, for instance, his repeated insistence that larceny of a chose in action can be a predicate for felony murder, or that a pretrial motion could have been made to dismiss that charge.) Call it willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, it's the way he argues.

Hah, A Lawyer. Give me a break. If I am not mistaken, it was Judge Hudson who (by the way, should have recused himself) determined to end the proceedings... not the State. Howard's defense attorneys were afraid to go up against Mike Nifong because they knew that that would only make him appear credible. If Nifong was so culpable regarding any wrongdoing, Scheck and Cooney would've gotten him on the stand first thing and tore him to shreds.

Alas, that did not happen.; September 9, 2016 at 8:13 PM
Gabe Roth said...: All references to the Duke lacrosse case and the 2010 Justice Breyer event at Duke, which were initially gleaned from various press reports, have been taken down from the Fix the Court website.; September 12, 2016 at 6:34 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 721 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