justice4nifong: Unabashed mainstream media bias against Nifong, Mangum, and Harr

Friday, September 9, 2016

Unabashed mainstream media bias against Nifong, Mangum, and Harr

210 comments:

1 – 200 of 210 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: Can you provide a transcript? I can't run the sharlogs.; September 10, 2016 at 4:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Regarding the Howard case - you are mistaken. It wasn't Judge Hudson. As was clearly explained, but you refuse to look at anything that doesn't fit your agenda:

There were 2 parts: DNA and MAR. Hudson ordered a new trial based on the DNA and asked if they wanted to proceed with the MAR (where Nifong would testify). The Defense said it was up to the State. If the State were going to attempt to appeal the DNA ruling, then the Defense was prepared to go forward on the MAR and call Nifong and the rest.

Before lunch the State said they were going to appeal the ruling, so Hudson ordered everyone e back at 2:30 to start the MAR.

After lunch the State withdrew their appeal, so the MAR hearing was postponed.

It was the State that made sure the MAR didn't happen, and the State that made sure Nifong wasn't called.

You've been elucidated, but you will, of course, ignore the truth and keep pushing your own fantasy.; September 10, 2016 at 4:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Why do you need a transcript? Here it is:

Wah wah wah ... Media bad, Nifong great, Crystal innocent wah wah wah ...

That's pretty much every sharlog he produces.; September 10, 2016 at 4:47 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

Can you post the transcript either as a series of comments or as text on the blogpost (as you formerly did)? That way we can more easily quote your statements in our comments.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 10, 2016 at 5:00 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Sidney,

Can you post the transcript either as a series of comments or as text on the blogpost (as you formerly did)? That way we can more easily quote your statements in our comments.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Hey, John.

Certainly... it was my intention to post the transcript along with the sharlog, but I had difficulty finding the transcribed image and didn't want to delay posting the sharlog. Very intensive day today, so I will try and have it posted under the sharlog no later than Sunday afternoon.; September 10, 2016 at 5:43 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

You misunderstood my comment. An "image" of the transcript is not particularly useful. It is not possible to copy text from an image. As a result, that format impedes the discussion you claim you want to promote.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 10, 2016 at 5:51 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Regarding the Howard case - you are mistaken. It wasn't Judge Hudson. As was clearly explained, but you refuse to look at anything that doesn't fit your agenda:

There were 2 parts: DNA and MAR. Hudson ordered a new trial based on the DNA and asked if they wanted to proceed with the MAR (where Nifong would testify). The Defense said it was up to the State. If the State were going to attempt to appeal the DNA ruling, then the Defense was prepared to go forward on the MAR and call Nifong and the rest.

Before lunch the State said they were going to appeal the ruling, so Hudson ordered everyone e back at 2:30 to start the MAR.

After lunch the State withdrew their appeal, so the MAR hearing was postponed.

It was the State that made sure the MAR didn't happen, and the State that made sure Nifong wasn't called.

You've been elucidated, but you will, of course, ignore the truth and keep pushing your own fantasy.

You may be correct as I was busy working on Crystal's case and did not waste my time on the media smack-down of Nifong. However, if the judge makes his ruling after part one, why proceed to part two. It doesn't make sense. That's like the home team going to bat in the bottom of the ninth inning when they're ahead. Why?

Judge Hudson could have waited until the defense completed their program... but, let's face it -- his mind was already made up. He should've recused himself after he had previously granted a new trial before the Appeals Court interceded and reversed to force the hearing.

Also, the defense could have easily led with the MAR, but probably felt it was weak and would provide Nifong with the opportunity to appear as the credible person he is. So instead, they decided to go with DNA first, and hope that the MAR would not be necessary. (The whole thing could've been pre-arranged.); September 10, 2016 at 5:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: JSwift said...
Sidney,

You misunderstood my comment. An "image" of the transcript is not particularly useful. It is not possible to copy text from an image. As a result, that format impedes the discussion you claim you want to promote.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Hey, John, what I meant was that I would upload the transcript as an "image file," such as a jpeg or png. Then instead of using Flash software, I would use HTML to post it... like I've done in the past. The bottom line being that I'll use the same process and procedures that I've used to post previous transcripts and you should be able to access it hopefully.; September 10, 2016 at 5:59 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

You continue to misunderstand my request. Yes, I can access the file and read it. However, I cannot copy your text into a comment and then respond to your statement. Your current approach makes commenting much more cumbersome.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 10, 2016 at 6:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 113 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 72 days since the end of June, 140 days since April 23rd, 179 days since the Ides of March and 3,374 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 10, 2016 at 6:57 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "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."

Sid, Crystal got lucky that the Clerk elected to treat your MAR as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Otherwise, it would have been rejected as filed in the wrong court. It has been explained to you that a MAR does not exist as a remedy in federal court.

"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."

Get your facts strait if you want to be the least bit persuasive.

Walt-in-Durham; September 10, 2016 at 7:22 AM
Anonymous said...: They were going to proceed to part 2 if the State was going to challenge part 1. That way they wouldn't have to wait for the full appeal to go up and down and delay part 2 another year or more. It was the interest of Judicial efficiency, and because an innocent man was still sitting in jail.

You are wrong, you are pathetic, you are a joke.; September 10, 2016 at 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...: It was the State who insisted on separating the hearings, and starting with the DNA. The Defense requested to just have 1 hearing, DNA and MAR together. The State insisted on separating them, and starting with the DNA. The State controlled that, not the Defense.

Again, you are wrong, you are pathetic, you are a joke.; September 10, 2016 at 8:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Why do you and Kenny refuse to offer any explanation or reason as to why the Statute of Limitations should not apply and bar your case against Duke? Whether or not it is valid, the Statute of Limitations is a bar, you've admitted it has run, yet neither you nor Kenny offer any explanation as to why it should not be applied to you.

Why?; September 10, 2016 at 9:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, the Duke suit's boat has sailed. You have no other avenues for the Duke suit other than just whining and complaining. Seems like a total waste of effort at this point.

What about the suit against Fix the Court? Did they respond to your letter?

You said: "Who knows what the hail is going on regarding the filing." This should be the number one item on your list of things to understand. The MAR is what gets Magnum out, nothing else.

You need to get back on track, right now you have fallen off the rails.; September 10, 2016 at 7:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 112 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 73 days since the end of June, 141 days since April 23rd, 180 days since the Ides of March and 3,375 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 11, 2016 at 4:33 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney, the Duke suit's boat has sailed. You have no other avenues for the Duke suit other than just whining and complaining. Seems like a total waste of effort at this point.

What about the suit against Fix the Court? Did they respond to your letter?

You said: "Who knows what the hail is going on regarding the filing." This should be the number one item on your list of things to understand. The MAR is what gets Magnum out, nothing else.

You need to get back on track, right now you have fallen off the rails.

Regarding the Duke boat sailing... not exactly. It may have freed up its mooring lines, but the gangway has not yet been raised. There is an appeal pending, lest you forget.

Regarding Fix-the-Court, I have yet to hear from them or see any amendment to the libelous article/press release. It's only a short matter of time before I take action in this matter.

As far as Crystal's MAR, she made the attempt to file it, and the clerk's office took the unprecedented move to alter her filing without her knowledge or consent. She has been trying to get an explanation from the clerk's office, but has yet to receive any communication from it.; September 11, 2016 at 5:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,

Why do you and Kenny refuse to offer any explanation or reason as to why the Statute of Limitations should not apply and bar your case against Duke? Whether or not it is valid, the Statute of Limitations is a bar, you've admitted it has run, yet neither you nor Kenny offer any explanation as to why it should not be applied to you.

Why?

Please indulge me as I proffer another sports analogy in response to your question.

In professional baseball, a game lasts nine innings. However, if the score is tied at the end of nine innings, play continues until there is a decisive outcome. In the lawsuit against Duke University, Harr-II and Harr-III represent extra innings of the same initial game.

Consider yourself elucidated.; September 11, 2016 at 5:42 AM
Anonymous said...: There is no such thing as a Federal MAR - as has been explained to you. You can only file a Writ of Habeas Corpus - the Clerk wanted to give her a snowball's chance in hell, so rather than keep it as the MAR which YOU told her to file, and have it summarily rejected, she treated it as a Writ, so it will at least get a quick review (before being rejected because it is a MAR).

Yes, by all means, convince Crystal to demand it be treated as a MAR instead of a Writ ... they will agree, then they will dismiss it because that is not a filing you can make in Federal Court. Once again your advice is totally wrong, and will hurt Crystal, but you will blame the system, not your total failure to follow the law (even though it has been explained to you).

You are still dodging the question of why the Statute of Limitations should not apply to you with the Duke lawsuits.

Nothing you have filed will help Crystal, in fact, like everything you have done it will continue to hurt her, because she isn't focusing on things that might help.

You are a sad, pathetic, narcissistic old man.; September 11, 2016 at 7:29 AM
Anonymous said...: You have yet to explain why the Statute of Limitations should not apply ... your analogy does nothing to explain that.

You have no explanation, your lawsuit will go nowhere. Not because of anti-Duke, or anti-Harr, or anti-Crystal bias, but on the merits and on the law ...; September 11, 2016 at 7:30 AM
JSwift said...: Anonymous 7:29/7:30:

You are being unfair in your criticism of Sidney's response regarding the statute of limitations. I found the explanation of his theory to be quite clear: he regards Harr-II and Harr-III as a continuation of Harr-I and not new lawsuits. Because Harr-I was filed before the statute of limitations expired, it was not barred. Because, under Sidney's theory, Harr-II and Harr-III are part of Harr-I, they also are not barred.

As is customary with Harr's arguments, he merely expresses his opinion (i.e., that Harr-II and Harr-III are part of Harr-I) and provides no precedent or other evidence to support that opinion. He assumes that when he expresses his opinion, all readers are expected to accept that opinion as valid.

Harr is guilty of relying extensively on a logical fallacy called the Galileo gambit — If someone is going against the tide of popular thinking, they must be right because the likes of Galileo were right and conventional wisdom was wrong; while in reality, Galileo was right because he had evidence to prove that he was right and conventional wisdom wrong. Sidney of course provides no evidence. Sidney also uses a logical fallacy called Argumentum ad martyrdom) -- that martyrdom is evidence for the truth of a proposition as martyrs would not die for nothing.

These are both intellectually dishonest rhetorical devices.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 11, 2016 at 10:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 111 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 74 days since the end of June, 142 days since April 23rd, 181 days since the Ides of March and 3,376 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 12, 2016 at 3:09 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: JSwift said...
Anonymous 7:29/7:30:

You are being unfair in your criticism of Sidney's response regarding the statute of limitations. I found the explanation of his theory to be quite clear: he regards Harr-II and Harr-III as a continuation of Harr-I and not new lawsuits. Because Harr-I was filed before the statute of limitations expired, it was not barred. Because, under Sidney's theory, Harr-II and Harr-III are part of Harr-I, they also are not barred.

As is customary with Harr's arguments, he merely expresses his opinion (i.e., that Harr-II and Harr-III are part of Harr-I) and provides no precedent or other evidence to support that opinion. He assumes that when he expresses his opinion, all readers are expected to accept that opinion as valid.

Harr is guilty of relying extensively on a logical fallacy called the Galileo gambit — If someone is going against the tide of popular thinking, they must be right because the likes of Galileo were right and conventional wisdom was wrong; while in reality, Galileo was right because he had evidence to prove that he was right and conventional wisdom wrong. Sidney of course provides no evidence. Sidney also uses a logical fallacy called Argumentum ad martyrdom) -- that martyrdom is evidence for the truth of a proposition as martyrs would not die for nothing.

These are both intellectually dishonest rhetorical devices.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Hey, John (JSwift).

You did an admirable job with explaining my position regarding the statute of limitations argument.

Also, I would like to thank you for enlightenment with regards to the two "logical fallacies". However, I give them more credence than you apparently do.; September 12, 2016 at 3:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid, you realize the logical fallacy was an insult to you, right? He was pointing out that just because that's your opinion doesn't mean it's right. If that is your Statute of Limitations argument, it's going to lose. There is specific case law on point - a re-filed case is not a continuation of the original.

You are basically admitting that you have no argument for why the Statute of Limitations should not apply. Of course, it will never get there, as the dismissal will be upheld.; September 12, 2016 at 4:05 AM
JSwift said...: Anonymous 4:05:

I was not "insulting" Sidney when I observed that he frequently employs logical fallacies and other intellectually dishonest rhetorical devices in his arguments. I was criticizing his form of argument. I do not find his intellectually dishonest arguments to be effective.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 12, 2016 at 4:20 AM
Walt said...: John D. Smith wrote: "I do not find his intellectually dishonest arguments to be effective."

Nor does anyone who matters. That explains his lifetime record of litigious futility.

Walt-in-Durham; September 12, 2016 at 5:24 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: :There is specific case law on point - a re-filed case is not a continuation of the original:.............................................. Case Law does not have the same force and effect as Scientific Law. You treat Case Law the same as fundamentalists treat scripture. I'm not 3/5th of a person; September 12, 2016 at 10:29 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny states:

Case Law does not have the same force and effect as Scientific Law.

Willful ignorance. Kenny ignores the importance of precedent in both the US and Canadian legal systems.

You treat Case Law the same as fundamentalists treat scripture.

Straw man argument. No one makes that claim. Moreover, no one denies that precedents can and do change over time.

I'm not 3/5th of a person

Straw man argument. No one makes that case. Moreover, your statement is inaccurate. The shameful provision that counted slaves as 3/5 of a person is not case law. It was included in the US Constitution until nullified by the 13th amendment, which outlawed slavery.

Perhaps you should suggest to Dr. Harr that, rather than simply voicing his opinion and expecting that all readers will automatically accept that opinion as valid, he should attempt to articulate WHY he holds the opinion that he holds. You might do well to do the same in framing your own arguments.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 12, 2016 at 11:02 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

You cannot attempt to circumvent the law and subvert justice by taking a lawsuit that was previously adjudicated and that you lost, refile it again and call it a new lawsuit. It isn't. It is the same lawsuit filed again. What Sid is trying to do is akin to taking a horse, gluing horn to its head and then claiming it is a unicorn. It is not; it is still just a horse.

As a matter of both science and law calling something by a different name doesn't make it different or change it; it is still the same thing no matter what you choose to call it. Sid of all people should know this. He filed the same lawsuit three times. He lost all three times and was sanctioned twice for his frivolous and vexatious attempts to relitigate the same suit. He will be punished every additional time he tries to relitigate Harr v. Duke, no matter what he calls it or how he tries to game the system. The case has been adjudicated and Sid lost. It is over and done with, and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. Any ham handed attempts Sid makes to file it again will simply cost him more money and trouble.

Ask Sid to give you one of the crying towels he promised to give me.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 12, 2016 at 12:37 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Case Law does not have the same force and effect as Scientific Law. You treat Case Law the same as fundamentalists treat scripture."

No, it is not. However, the notion of equal justice under the law is an ancient one. Pericles was the first person to enunciate the notion that all people are, or at least should be treated as equals under the law in his funeral oration delivered in 431 B.C. From then until the late 19th Century, the doctrine evolved in the common law systems to a point where the U.S. Constitution was amended to add the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1891, in the case of Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U.S. 692, Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote on behalf of a unanimous Court regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law."

The notion of equal application of the law to all had firmly reached these shores by 1891. Many decades later, Justice Thurgood Marshall made a similar point: "The principles which would have governed with $10,000 at stake should also govern when thousands have become billions. That is the essence of equal justice under law. Pennzoil v. Texaco, 481 U.S. 1. To be sure, a civil case and not a criminal one. But, the point is the same as Pericles was making. All are treated equally before the law. No one gets her own set of laws. The way we do that is by applying precedent from earlier cases to the present. This is a hallmark of common law systems be they in the United Kingdom, Canada or the United States. Thus, precedent is of great importance. Precedent tells the court both what the law is and how to apply it equally to all, or as Justice Marshall would say: the principles which would have governed with $10,000 at stake should also govern when thousands have become billions.

"I'm not 3/5th of a person."

No, you are not 3/5th of a person, nor have you been since April 1865 when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified by the several states. Another example of your "straw man" arguments.

Walt-in-Durham; September 12, 2016 at 1:35 PM
JSwift said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; September 12, 2016 at 1:55 PM
JSwift said...: I see that Fix the Court has removed all references on its website to Sidney Harr, the Breyer event and the Duke Lacrosse Case. Sidney has succeeded in having the record changed.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 12, 2016 at 1:56 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt quoted: 'Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote on behalf of a unanimous Court regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law."............ Lofty words but as almost everyone knows the US Justice System is in drastic need of reform. Poor and minority persons do not receive equal and impartial treatment under the law.; September 12, 2016 at 3:03 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Lofty words but as almost everyone knows the US Justice System is in drastic need of reform. Poor and minority persons do not receive equal and impartial treatment under the law."

You are the one though who consistently argues for unequal and very partial treatment under the law. Thankfully, your arguments are intellectually dishonest and perpetually fail to persuade.

Walt-in-Durham; September 12, 2016 at 3:12 PM
Anonymous said...: http://www.oaith.ca/assets/files/Publications/justice_andthe_poor.pdf

I suspect that defendants with money on average can afford better lawyers than those without--in the United States, in Canada and elsewhere.; September 12, 2016 at 4:39 PM
Anonymous said...: ...as almost everyone knows the Canadian Justice System is in drastic need of reform. Poor and minority persons do not receive equal and impartial treatment under the law.; September 12, 2016 at 4:41 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "as almost everyone knows the Canadian Justice System is in drastic need of reform. Poor and minority persons do not receive equal and impartial treatment under the law".................Most likely as well as the British System. We are far from perfect. I don't want to come across as a smug sanctimonious Canadian but does Canada have as great a race problem as the US. No. Is Canada in general more tolerant then the US Yes. We accepted 52,000 Syrian refugees 32,000 already settled. Yes they were vetted. Gay marriage in all provinces since 2005 Gays in the military 1992. Abortion legal in Canada in 1969. Universal cradle to grave single payer 100% covered health care since 1966 and no we don't have death panels. Every time someone waiting in line for a service who dies it gets widely disseminated by the US Insurance lobby but they don't mention the ten fold rate people were dying in the US when they did not get timely treatment because of no coverage. Slavery abolished in 1793. Segregation and Jim Crow didn't happen. Like the US also did with it's aboriginal people we failed. Hopefully our Truth and Reconciliation Process will right the wrongs done.; September 12, 2016 at 9:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 4:39 Thanks for that report. Hopefully since 2000 when it was written things have improved,although we just came off of 9 years of right wing conservative government with Bush/ Reagan/ Bush like policies. Now that the Liberals are back in power things should once again improve. This has already began with Aboriginal people.; September 12, 2016 at 9:47 PM
Anonymous said...: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/07/31/the-suffocating-experience-of-being-black-in-canada.html; September 13, 2016 at 4:01 AM
Anonymous said...: The 1793 Act banned bringing new slaves into Cananda, but did not free existing slaves. Slavery was not abolished completely until the British Parliament banned it in 1833. By contrast, many northern US states banned slavery earlier. For example, Vermont in 1777.; September 13, 2016 at 4:13 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: JSwift said...
I see that Fix the Court has removed all references on its website to Sidney Harr, the Breyer event and the Duke Lacrosse Case. Sidney has succeeded in having the record changed.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Hey, John (JSwift).

The record was changed because the allegation by Fix-the-Court was spurious and false. It really had no other choice. Thanks for alerting me about the change. An eminent lawsuit was narrowly averted.; September 13, 2016 at 5:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 110 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 75 days since the end of June, 143 days since April 23rd, 182 days since the Ides of March and 3,377 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 13, 2016 at 5:26 AM
guiowen said...: Good work, Sidney! You forced those holier-than-thou characters at Fix the Court to fix their own work.; September 13, 2016 at 11:21 AM
Anonymous said...: The record was changed because the allegation was true, but they knew that Sid is a crazy man, and would file a lawsuit, and they don't want to deal with it. Sid would try to depose the Justice.

So, Sid, being insane and filing frivolous crap paid off ... you'd rather get money, but at least you got people to change story.; September 13, 2016 at 2:45 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Good work, Sidney! You forced those holier-than-thou characters at Fix the Court to fix their own work.

gui, mon ami, thanks. I was surprised that it took them so long to take any action... especially after the sharlogs that I posted.

I believe that my latest sharlog might have gotten someone at WRAL-5 News a little concerned (knowing that they had given Fix-the-Court false information) and decided to warn Fix-the-Court that its passage was libelous.

I agree that Fix-the-Court should fix its own stories before taking on the U.S. Supreme Court. It was on the brink.; September 13, 2016 at 9:02 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
The record was changed because the allegation was true, but they knew that Sid is a crazy man, and would file a lawsuit, and they don't want to deal with it. Sid would try to depose the Justice.

So, Sid, being insane and filing frivolous crap paid off ... you'd rather get money, but at least you got people to change story.

Hah! If Fix-the-Court's allegation was true, they would have stood by it and not removed it... regardless of my mental status. The point is that Fix-the-Court cannot go around libeling anyone even if they are crazy... the law is supposed to protect crazy people, too.

Now, regarding the money, I had plenty of time to file a lawsuit against Fix-the-Court. I write pretty fast. That libelous story was up for more than two months, and I repeatedly warned them to amend the article in letters written to them. The sharlogs themselves should have pressured them to take action to avert a legal suit. Had money been my objective, I would not have written warnings or produced the sharlogs that I did. Instead, I would've went to the courthouse and filed my lawsuit. Filing a lawsuit, as I did with D.A. Freeman, is a last resort.; September 13, 2016 at 9:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 109 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 76 days since the end of June, 144 days since April 23rd, 183 days since the Ides of March and 3,378 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 14, 2016 at 3:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid ... no one doubts you can write fast, but as everyone but you seems to realize, legal filings aren't a race - you draft fast, but you draft with no legal basis, and totally frivolous lawsuits. It doesn't matter how fast you can write if what you write is legally and factually incorrect.

Have you told Crystal you have repeatedly failed her, or are you continuing your cycle of abuse and drawing her closer and closer to you by explaining that the failures are further proof of the conspiracy against her, and you are her only savior?; September 14, 2016 at 5:06 AM
Anonymous said...: The Constitution never said that blacks were 3/5 of a human being.The three fifths clause was inserted by opponents of slavery.There is fact no mention of race in the U.S. Constitution.Any so-called minority in Canada or the United States is free to leave.Maybe Haiti or a nation in sub-Saharan Africa would be more to their liking.; September 15, 2016 at 3:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 108 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 77 days since the end of June, 145 days since April 23rd, 184 days since the Ides of March and 3,379 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 15, 2016 at 5:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid ... no one doubts you can write fast, but as everyone but you seems to realize, legal filings aren't a race - you draft fast, but you draft with no legal basis, and totally frivolous lawsuits. It doesn't matter how fast you can write if what you write is legally and factually incorrect.

Have you told Crystal you have repeatedly failed her, or are you continuing your cycle of abuse and drawing her closer and closer to you by explaining that the failures are further proof of the conspiracy against her, and you are her only savior?

Respectfully, I beg to differ with you regarding the legal merit of my court filings. Just because the rulings have been adverse, does not mean that the briefs I have filed should not have been acted upon in my favor. The Courts, like governmental agencies, politicians, and the media are not bias-free. In fact, the legal system in this state is cruel, corrupt, and racist.

As far as Crystal goes, I do encourage her to remain positive because I strongly believe that she will prevail in the near future because truth and justice are on her side.; September 15, 2016 at 5:22 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney wrote: Respectfully, I beg to differ with you regarding the legal merit of my court filings. Just because the rulings have been adverse, does not mean that the briefs I have filed should not have been acted upon in my favor. The Courts, like governmental agencies, politicians, and the media are not bias-free. In fact, the legal system in this state is cruel, corrupt, and racist.

Willful ignorance and argument by assertion. Both are intellectually dishonest rhetorical devices.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 15, 2016 at 5:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney said: "Instead, I would've went to the courthouse and filed my lawsuit."

Would you have not had to sue Fix the Court in Illinois as that is where they are based out of?

Our mailing address is:
Fix the Court
201 W. Lake St., Ste. 153
Chicago, Ill., 60606; September 15, 2016 at 6:23 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sidney said: "Instead, I would've went to the courthouse and filed my lawsuit."

Would you have not had to sue Fix the Court in Illinois as that is where they are based out of?

Our mailing address is:
Fix the Court
201 W. Lake St., Ste. 153
Chicago, Ill., 60606

I am not a lawyer, but to my understanding it would be appropriate and permissible for me to file the complaint with the Federal Court in which I reside... the Eastern District Court of the State of North Carolina. Possibly Walt or A Lawyer might be able to give us both some professional enlightenment.; September 15, 2016 at 7:00 AM
Anonymous said...: It doesn't matter what "professional enlightenment" they give you - you will do what you want - totally ignoring their advice. You haven't listened to them yet, why would you start now?; September 15, 2016 at 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 107 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 78 days since the end of June, 146 days since April 23rd, 185 days since the Ides of March and 3,380 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 16, 2016 at 4:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid:

You have 107 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 78 days since the end of June, 146 days since April 23rd, 185 days since the Ides of March and 3,380 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe.

Thanks for the updates... but I have a strong feeling that a breakthrough is just around the bend. To be honest, I'm surprised that it's been this long without a resolution. But there'll be one soon. You can take that to the credit union.; September 16, 2016 at 6:08 AM
guiowen said...: Just around what bend? Which credit union would that be?; September 16, 2016 at 10:14 AM
A Lawyer said...: I have a strong feeling that a breakthrough is just around the bend. To be honest, I'm surprised that it's been this long without a resolution. But there'll be one soon. You can take that to the credit union.

You had that feeling in March, in April and in June. I'm not going to hold my breath.; September 16, 2016 at 11:02 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I am not a lawyer, but to my understanding it would be appropriate and permissible for me to file the complaint with the Federal Court in which I reside... the Eastern District Court of the State of North Carolina. Possibly Walt or A Lawyer might be able to give us both some professional enlightenment."

Indeed, A Lawyer and I can enlighten you, not that it has ever done any good in the past. That said, and for the greater good of any whom might be interested, 28 U.S. Code § 1391 provides the rules for venue (that is where a lawsuit may be filed) in federal courts. Specifically 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b) provides - A civil action may be brought in—
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

You will note that the alternatives are ranked by preference. Thus first preference is where all the defendants reside. That rules out the Eastern District unless Fix The Court has its corporate principal place of business in the eastern third of North Carolina. From their address on their website, it appears though that their principal place of business is in Illinois. So, the Eastern District is not the venue for suing Fix the Court.

Unless Sid is planning on suing multiple defendants, as is his usual frivolous practice, he might be able to claim the Middle District has the appropriate venue under 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b)(2). But, he might have some problems if he names his usual unrelated defendants to get (b)(2) venue. He is, after all, under a no filing order in the Middle District. Thus, he might have to resort to a court with jurisdiction over the defendant under 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b)(3), which is most likely the Northern District of Illinois.; September 16, 2016 at 11:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 106 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 79 days since the end of June, 147 days since April 23rd, 186 days since the Ides of March and 3,381 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 17, 2016 at 3:59 AM
JSwift said...: Walt:

Thank you for your explanation. It is clear from the rules that Sidney would be able to file a complaint in North Carolina.

Had Fix the Court not removed the language Sidney contends is inaccurate and he filed suit, the defendants would have included, at a minimum, both Fix the Court and WRAL. Sidney contends, and Gabe Roth concedes, that Fix the Court relies on media reports for its coverage. WRAL provided the media report.

Although Fix the Court is located in Illinois, WRAL is located in Raleigh, North Carolina. The events that gave rise to the coverage occurred in Durham. I expect he would choose the Eastern District of North Carolina, because of the Raleigh location of WRAL.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 17, 2016 at 6:26 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Just around what bend? Which credit union would that be?

Hah, gui, mon ami.

Clearly the bend was temporally speaking as opposed to physical. And, using the term "credit union" was merely a substitute for the well-known phrase used in place of "bank."

But I am confident that my current lawsuit against D.A. Freeman will help lead to rectification.; September 18, 2016 at 4:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
I have a strong feeling that a breakthrough is just around the bend. To be honest, I'm surprised that it's been this long without a resolution. But there'll be one soon. You can take that to the credit union.

You had that feeling in March, in April and in June. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Hey, A Lawyer.

I would not advise holding your breath... as stubbornness of those in positions of power, who are unwilling to yield to Lady Justice's decree, is undaunted. I have long since given up the proposition that reason and ethical considerations would prevail over the hubris of the powerful and privileged. Ergo, I must battle in the Courts - i.e. my lawsuit against D.A. Freeman - to force their hand to do the right thing.; September 18, 2016 at 4:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "I am not a lawyer, but to my understanding it would be appropriate and permissible for me to file the complaint with the Federal Court in which I reside... the Eastern District Court of the State of North Carolina. Possibly Walt or A Lawyer might be able to give us both some professional enlightenment."

Indeed, A Lawyer and I can enlighten you, not that it has ever done any good in the past. That said, and for the greater good of any whom might be interested, 28 U.S. Code § 1391 provides the rules for venue (that is where a lawsuit may be filed) in federal courts. Specifically 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b) provides - A civil action may be brought in—
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

You will note that the alternatives are ranked by preference. Thus first preference is where all the defendants reside. That rules out the Eastern District unless Fix The Court has its corporate principal place of business in the eastern third of North Carolina. From their address on their website, it appears though that their principal place of business is in Illinois. So, the Eastern District is not the venue for suing Fix the Court.

Unless Sid is planning on suing multiple defendants, as is his usual frivolous practice, he might be able to claim the Middle District has the appropriate venue under 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b)(2). But, he might have some problems if he names his usual unrelated defendants to get (b)(2) venue. He is, after all, under a no filing order in the Middle District. Thus, he might have to resort to a court with jurisdiction over the defendant under 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b)(3), which is most likely the Northern District of Illinois.

Hey, Walt.

Would also like to thank you for your elucidation on the subject. However, even if the appropriate venue for filing would be in Illinois, there exists commercial transportation that would allow me to travel to the State of Lincoln to file... and I have no aversion to traveling. Fix-the-Court's action, though late, prevented the eminent filing of a libel suit which was in the pre-drafting stage.; September 18, 2016 at 4:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: JSwift said...
Walt:

Thank you for your explanation. It is clear from the rules that Sidney would be able to file a complaint in North Carolina.

Had Fix the Court not removed the language Sidney contends is inaccurate and he filed suit, the defendants would have included, at a minimum, both Fix the Court and WRAL. Sidney contends, and Gabe Roth concedes, that Fix the Court relies on media reports for its coverage. WRAL provided the media report.

Although Fix the Court is located in Illinois, WRAL is located in Raleigh, North Carolina. The events that gave rise to the coverage occurred in Durham. I expect he would choose the Eastern District of North Carolina, because of the Raleigh location of WRAL.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Hey, JSwift Smith.

That's a good strategic suggestion, and actually one which I didn't even consider. However, I would probably not include WRAL-5 News as a defendant because I have no proof that it gave the false information (about me accosting Justice Breyer) to Fix-the-Court. Even if I knew for a fact that it did, I would probably not sue the news station as it never publicly made the false statement. Sure, WRAL-5 falsely stated that I was from Durham and that my lawsuit was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, but those are errors respectively that are sloppy and misleading... not malicious in intent looking at it cursorily.

Contrary to popular belief, mainly espoused by a biased mainstream media and court, I am not a rabid litigator. I am of the ilk who seeks amicable and fair resolutions to disputes. Comprende?; September 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 104 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 80 days since the end of June, 148 days since April 23rd, 187 days since the Ides of March and 3,382 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 18, 2016 at 5:34 AM
A Lawyer said...: But I am confident that my current lawsuit against D.A. Freeman will help lead to rectification.

How so?

(a) The suit was already dismissed.

(b) Even if it were to be reinstated on appeal (and it won't), you have admitted in court that you no longer seek an order releasing Mangum from custody, only an order that D.A. Freeman have someone from her staff meet with you.; September 18, 2016 at 9:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 103 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 81 days since the end of June, 149 days since April 23rd, 188 days since the Ides of March and 3,383 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 19, 2016 at 3:33 AM
Anonymous said...: The Freeman lawsuit is dead - and, as been repeatedly explained to you anyway, can't accomplish anything. There is no jurisdiction over the Mangum case, or the alleged perjury which occurred in Durham. If she were to meet with you, she'd say "it happened in Durham, I can't do anything about it, call them."

This has all been explained to you, repeatedly, but you still simply choose not to learn.

Every one of your lawsuits has failed - and the MAR/Writ you filed on Crystal's behalf will likewise fail.

She had her chances, but instead of listening to those trying to help her, she chose to listen to you and Kenny.; September 19, 2016 at 5:50 AM
Anonymous said...: April 1, 2016 was the last sharlog that was about Magnum and getting her a new trial. Since then the sharlogs have all been about Sidney. And I think this is the bank Sidney is referring to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman_Brothers; September 19, 2016 at 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 102 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 82 days since the end of June, 150 days since April 23rd, 189 days since the Ides of March and 3,384 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 20, 2016 at 1:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 101 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 83 days since the end of June, 151 days since April 23rd, 190 days since the Ides of March and 3,385 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 21, 2016 at 3:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 100 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 84 days since the end of June, 152 days since April 23rd, 191 days since the Ides of March and 3,386 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM
Walt said...: Well, Sid's filed his Freeman appeal. The cause number at the Fourth Circuit is 16-CV-2042. No briefs as yet. Sid's informal opening brief is due October 7, 2016, any reply is due seventeen (17) days after Sid's brief is filed. As always, the Fourth Circuit will not consider matters not raised in the informal opening brief and the Appellant may not raise matters not before the District Court. I look forward to Sid's frivolity with this meritless appeal.

Walt-in-Durham; September 22, 2016 at 11:01 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Well, Sid's filed his Freeman appeal. The cause number at the Fourth Circuit is 16-CV-2042. No briefs as yet. Sid's informal opening brief is due October 7, 2016, any reply is due seventeen (17) days after Sid's brief is filed. As always, the Fourth Circuit will not consider matters not raised in the informal opening brief and the Appellant may not raise matters not before the District Court. I look forward to Sid's frivolity with this meritless appeal.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

Thanks for keeping the commenters and blog viewers updated. I have been busy working on my brief, and expect to have it filed in a timely manner. Glad you are being entertained by this legal action with widespread and serious implications. Hope you can continue to be amused in the event of a ruling which you don't anticipate.; September 23, 2016 at 7:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 99 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 85 days since the end of June, 153 days since April 23rd, 192 days since the Ides of March and 3,387 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 23, 2016 at 7:37 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
April 1, 2016 was the last sharlog that was about Magnum and getting her a new trial. Since then the sharlogs have all been about Sidney. And I think this is the bank Sidney is referring to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman_Brothers

Hah. So funny, I almost forgot to laugh. If you will not, I made no reference to a bank, but rather a credit union. As far as the sharlog goes, it may focus on my lawsuit against Freeman, but at the core of the basis of my lawsuit of being ignored by D.A. Freeman is the issue of Mangum's innocence in Daye's death.; September 23, 2016 at 7:40 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
The Freeman lawsuit is dead - and, as been repeatedly explained to you anyway, can't accomplish anything. There is no jurisdiction over the Mangum case, or the alleged perjury which occurred in Durham. If she were to meet with you, she'd say "it happened in Durham, I can't do anything about it, call them."

This has all been explained to you, repeatedly, but you still simply choose not to learn.

Every one of your lawsuits has failed - and the MAR/Writ you filed on Crystal's behalf will likewise fail.

She had her chances, but instead of listening to those trying to help her, she chose to listen to you and Kenny.

You hit the nail on the head with your phrase, "If she were to meet with you..." That is at issue in the lawsuit. She refused to meet with me, electing instead to ignore me. Jurisdiction is appropriate as all action related to the interaction between me and Freeman has occurred in Wake County.

As far as the MAR/Habeas Corpus Mangum filed Pro Se, that has not been yet resolved. I don't know what the hail is going on with it.; September 23, 2016 at 7:45 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "As far as the sharlog goes, it may focus on my lawsuit against Freeman, but at the core of the basis of my lawsuit of being ignored by D.A. Freeman is the issue of Mangum's innocence in Daye's death."

That's why your informal brief is going to be so frivolous. Even you can't decide what your case was about.

Walt-in-Durham; September 23, 2016 at 8:31 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "As far as the sharlog goes, it may focus on my lawsuit against Freeman, but at the core of the basis of my lawsuit of being ignored by D.A. Freeman is the issue of Mangum's innocence in Daye's death."

That's why your informal brief is going to be so frivolous. Even you can't decide what your case was about.

Walt-in-Durham

Ding-a-ling! Nice try, Walt.

Clearly the focus of my lawsuit has to do with Freeman ignoring my attempt to present to her evidence of innocence post-conviction, and the reporting of criminality. The point I made is that my complaint is related to Mangum. The subject matter of the complaint is irrelevant to the legal complaint. Comprende? .. or is further elucidation required?; September 23, 2016 at 8:38 AM
A Lawyer said...: The subject matter of the complaint is irrelevant to the legal complaint.

That sounds like the reasoning the 4th Circuit will use to affirm the dismissal of your lawsuit.

You may not realize it, Dr. Harr, but you are speaking legal gibberish. I will once again urge you, for your own sake, to speak to your friend Dr. Coleman about your case before you pursue this frivolous appeal.; September 23, 2016 at 9:59 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

In the numerous lawsuits you have filed , you have demonstrated an inability to engage in effective argumentation. Instead, you rely almost wholly on intellectually dishonest arguments. As a result, you can make even a serious argument frivolous.

In essence, your filings can be summarized as follows: I have an opinion, and because I have that opinion, I am entitled to a jury trial.

The defendants you sue reply with their contrary opinions, supported by legal arguments and analysis, with case law to support those legal arguments. In your response, you essentially ignore those arguments and cases, merely repeating that you have an opinion and are therefore entitled to a jury trial.

The court evaluates your unsupported opinion and contrasts it with the legal arguments and case law provided by your opponents. In all cases, they have determined that your opinion is not supported by the law. In their opinions, they provide legal analysis, with case law to support their conclusions.

When you appeal, you essentially ignore those arguments and cases cited in the trial court's opinion, once again merely repeating that you have an opinion and are therefore entitled to a jury trial. Your opponents once again reply with their contrary opinions, supported by legal arguments and analysis, with case law to support those legal arguments.

The appeals court evaluates your unsupported opinion and contrasts it with the legal arguments and case law provided by your opponents and the trial court. In all cases, they have determined that your opinion is not supported by the law. In their opinions, they provide legal analysis, with case law to support their conclusions.

You move onto the next appeal, essentially ignoring those arguments and cases...

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 23, 2016 at 12:06 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "The subject matter of the complaint is irrelevant to the legal complaint. Comprende?"

No, I don't understand. What you wrote is incomprehensible gibberish. If it supposed to pass for persuasive argument, it fails. Yet another confirmation of the meritless nature of your complaint.

Walt-in-Durham; September 23, 2016 at 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Sorry Sidney I meant this link:

https://www.ncua.gov/newsroom/Pages/news-2015-dec-bethex-closes.aspx; September 23, 2016 at 2:26 PM
Anonymous said...: "You move onto the next appeal, essentially ignoring those arguments and cases..."

We all forget that Sidney can not use the Federal Law Library in Raleigh.; September 23, 2016 at 7:31 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
The subject matter of the complaint is irrelevant to the legal complaint.

That sounds like the reasoning the 4th Circuit will use to affirm the dismissal of your lawsuit.

You may not realize it, Dr. Harr, but you are speaking legal gibberish. I will once again urge you, for your own sake, to speak to your friend Dr. Coleman about your case before you pursue this frivolous appeal.

Hey, A Lawyer.

Like my ami gui, I believe that you have my best interests at heart, and I want you to know how much I appreciate that. However, I do plan on proceeding with the appeal, not only because I already paid the docketing and filing fee of $505.00, but because I believe that there are sufficient grounds for appeal to be successful. Clearly, there is nothing frivolous about the initial complaint or its appeal. Don't you believe that the District Attorney has a duty to reasonably communicate with her constituents... or do you believe, as is her apparent defense, that she has the right to ignore them? It is D.A. Freeman's interaction, or lack thereof, that is at issue, not the subject matter of the issue that I want to bring to her attention.

Although the draft of the appeal is near completion, I will plan on posting it on this blog site within days of its filing. If you read it, then I believe, if viewed with complete objectivity, that you will likely change your stance with regards to its merit.; September 24, 2016 at 7:26 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: JSwift said...
Sidney,

In the numerous lawsuits you have filed , you have demonstrated an inability to engage in effective argumentation. Instead, you rely almost wholly on intellectually dishonest arguments. As a result, you can make even a serious argument frivolous.

In essence, your filings can be summarized as follows: I have an opinion, and because I have that opinion, I am entitled to a jury trial.

The defendants you sue reply with their contrary opinions, supported by legal arguments and analysis, with case law to support those legal arguments. In your response, you essentially ignore those arguments and cases, merely repeating that you have an opinion and are therefore entitled to a jury trial.

The court evaluates your unsupported opinion and contrasts it with the legal arguments and case law provided by your opponents. In all cases, they have determined that your opinion is not supported by the law. In their opinions, they provide legal analysis, with case law to support their conclusions.

When you appeal, you essentially ignore those arguments and cases cited in the trial court's opinion, once again merely repeating that you have an opinion and are therefore entitled to a jury trial. Your opponents once again reply with their contrary opinions, supported by legal arguments and analysis, with case law to support those legal arguments.

The appeals court evaluates your unsupported opinion and contrasts it with the legal arguments and case law provided by your opponents and the trial court. In all cases, they have determined that your opinion is not supported by the law. In their opinions, they provide legal analysis, with case law to support their conclusions.

You move onto the next appeal, essentially ignoring those arguments and cases...

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Hey, John(JSwift).

I don't agree with your assessment of my past appeals, but take note that in the appeal that I file against D.A. Freeman that every attempt is made to argue the weak defense put forth. Also, you should not hold me to account for lack of legal citation of case law as I have been deprived of access to the Federal Courthouse law library. If you can give a logical and legitimate reason why I, as a lay-litigant, should be barred from the resources of the library, then I would be interested in hearing them.; September 24, 2016 at 7:33 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sorry Sidney I meant this link:

https://www.ncua.gov/newsroom/Pages/news-2015-dec-bethex-closes.aspx

Thanks for the clarification. But all that shows is that credit unions are not exempt from problems of mismanagement or failure. However, whether a bank or credit union, your example is moot as all was meant as an allegory or metaphor.; September 24, 2016 at 7:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 98 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 86 days since the end of June, 154 days since April 23rd, 193 days since the Ides of March and 3,388 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 24, 2016 at 8:04 AM
A Lawyer said...: Don't you believe that the District Attorney has a duty to reasonably communicate with her constituents... or do you believe, as is her apparent defense, that she has the right to ignore them?

It's not my "belief," it's what the case law holds: any "duty" of the D.A. to meet with constituents is one enforceable by the voters, not by a federal court.

Although the draft of the appeal is near completion, I will plan on posting it on this blog site within days of its filing. If you read it, then I believe, if viewed with complete objectivity, that you will likely change your stance with regards to its merit.

What is your friend Dr. Coleman's opinion of its merit? Or are you afraid to ask him?

It is D.A. Freeman's interaction, or lack thereof, that is at issue, not the subject matter of the issue that I want to bring to her attention.

Then how can you believe this lawsuit will help Mangum? Even if you win (and you won't, you can take that to the Credit Union), D.A. Freeman will meet with you for 5 minutes, say, "sorry, that's not in my county," and show you the door. What have you accomplished? You would have done better to have saved the $505 and contributed it to Mangum's commissary account.; September 24, 2016 at 10:25 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney wrote: I don't agree with your assessment of my past appeals, but take note that in the appeal that I file against D.A. Freeman that every attempt is made to argue the weak defense put forth. Also, you should not hold me to account for lack of legal citation of case law as I have been deprived of access to the Federal Courthouse law library. If you can give a logical and legitimate reason why I, as a lay-litigant, should be barred from the resources of the library, then I would be interested in hearing them.

Sidney,

I thank you for your response. However, it was not particularly responsive.

1. I don't agree with your assessment of my past appeals

Argument by assertion.

I characterized your appeals as essentially using the following "argument" to support your case: "I have an opinion, and because I have an opinion, I am entitled to a jury trial." In your response, you provide no examples that contradict my assessment. Rather, you argue only that you have an "opinion" that I am wrong and readers should accept that opinion--merely because you hold it. I take your response as partial confirmation of my "assessment" of your debating skills.

2.Also, you should not hold me to account for lack of legal citation of case law as I have been deprived of access to the Federal Courthouse law library.

Willful ignorance.

I, like the courts, hold you to account for your "lack of legal citation of case law." While your inability to use the law library in Raleigh is an inconvenience, as has been noted repeatedly on this blog, other legal resources are available to you. You have consistently refused to acknowledge this advice, preferring to whine about your inability to use the library of your choice. Your refusal to use these other resources and to continue to argue that you should not be required to provide citation to case law is consistent with my "assessment" of your debating skills.

3. If you can give a logical and legitimate reason why I, as a lay-litigant, should be barred from the resources of the library, then I would be interested in hearing them.

Along with other readers, I have answered this question previously. I will not do so again. I recognize that, in your "opinion," the reason provided is not a "logical and legitimate reason." You have never explained why the other resources are not acceptable alternatives.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 24, 2016 at 12:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

If you don't have access to legal resources - or, more accurately, the will to access and utilize the legal resources that are already available to you - then you shouldn't be practicing law. I question how important any of the myriad cases you have brought can be to you if you aren't willing to take the steps necessary to properly research, prepare and argue them.

Stop blaming the rest of the world for your own failures.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 24, 2016 at 3:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 97 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 87 days since the end of June, 155 days since April 23rd, 194 days since the Ides of March and 3,389 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 25, 2016 at 5:18 AM
Anonymous said...: No, the DA does not have that duty - as has been explained to you. You've also tried to meet with Roy Cooper and Pat McCrory, and had written Eric Holder. Why not sue them as well.

It's been explained to you repeatedly that your lawsuit is frivolous, but as it's part of yourncontinued emotioanl abuse of Crystal and further attempts to isolate her from others, you will persist.; September 25, 2016 at 8:53 AM
Anonymous said...: There are other libraries you can use, and there are even online tools. You are a pathetic idiot.; September 25, 2016 at 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 96 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 88 days since the end of June, 156 days since April 23rd, 195 days since the Ides of March and 3,390 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 26, 2016 at 4:50 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
There are other libraries you can use, and there are even online tools. You are a pathetic idiot.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct... that I am a pathetic idiot. Can you provide a reasonable explanation why the Federal Courthouse should deny me access of its law library because I am not a licensed attorney? This, despite the fact that I am a Pro Se litigant in its court. All I seek is one, simple logical explanation.; September 26, 2016 at 5:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
No, the DA does not have that duty - as has been explained to you. You've also tried to meet with Roy Cooper and Pat McCrory, and had written Eric Holder. Why not sue them as well.

It's been explained to you repeatedly that your lawsuit is frivolous, but as it's part of yourncontinued emotioanl abuse of Crystal and further attempts to isolate her from others, you will persist.

Because I chose not to file a civil suit against Governor McCrory, Roy Cooper, and Eric Holder, does not mean that I do not feel that I lack standing to file such a civil suit. It does require time, effort, and finances to file a lawsuit, and so I must use my discretion when it comes to which defendant would be most appropriate to file suit against. Keep in mind, it was D.A. Freeman who acted expediently against Sheriff Deputy Robert Davis with his misstatement in a trivial traffic DWI incident... using her discretion to act on it when the issue of perjury was questionable to say the least. As far as justifiable candidates against which to file a lawsuit, a second best individual would be Orange County D.A. Jim Woodall who had been considering bringing criminal charges against medical examiner Dr. Clay Nichols. I had seriously considered bringing a civil suit against him, but after much reflection and cogitation, I felt the most appropriate person to file a lawsuit against would be Wake County D.A. Lorrin Freeman. Sometimes, you have to choose your battles.; September 26, 2016 at 6:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid:

If you don't have access to legal resources - or, more accurately, the will to access and utilize the legal resources that are already available to you - then you shouldn't be practicing law. I question how important any of the myriad cases you have brought can be to you if you aren't willing to take the steps necessary to properly research, prepare and argue them.

Stop blaming the rest of the world for your own failures.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe.

Let me make it crystal clear... I do not blame the rest of the world for my legal failures... I blame a cruel, corrupt, and biased legal system that abuses the Motion to Dismiss to prevent me from having my day in court.

Keep in mind that man-made laws are not Commandments handed down from the heavens like manna. Many laws are discriminatory and self-serving to those who enact them. Unfortunately laws and justice are often far from reaching consensus.

Like a challenged another commenter, can you give a reasonable reason why I, a non-attorney lay citizen, should be denied access to the Federal Courthouse law library? I seek only a single logical reason.; September 26, 2016 at 6:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

Reasons were previously given by me and others why certain law libraries are established and reserved for lawyers and others legal professionals to use. You may respond to those reasons or continue to ignore them, as you choose. I will not repeat them. As has also been pointed out to you numerous times, there are numerous other resources available to you that you can't be bothered to use. Stop blaming other people for your failure to do basic legal research.

You have had your day in court (usually multiple days) on each and every lawsuit you have brought. You have lost them all. The rules that require someone to have a valid case against someone before dragging them thru a trial are not unfair, cruel, corrupt or biased. They exist to keep the system running in an efficient and orderly manner, weed out meritless and frivolous lawsuits and protect people from abusive and vexatious litigants like you.

The blame for your legal failures lies solely with you.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 26, 2016 at 6:57 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Sid -- North Carolina Central University School of Law (NCCU) Library has a special collection in Civil Rights Law. Why aren't you using it?; September 26, 2016 at 7:22 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Keep in mind, it was D.A. Freeman who acted expediently against Sheriff Deputy Robert Davis with his misstatement in a trivial traffic DWI incident..."

Said misstatement, which was actually false police reports and untruthful testimony in court wer made within her jurisdiction. This has been explained to you. Willful ignorance is not persuasive argument.

"...using her discretion to act on it when the issue of perjury was questionable to say the least."

She has no discretion. The alleged perjury took place outside her prosecutorial district. She has no discretion, and no authority to file charges outside her district. As has been explained to you before. Another example of your willful ignorance.

"As far as justifiable candidates against which to file a lawsuit, a second best individual would be Orange County D.A. Jim Woodall who had been considering bringing criminal charges against medical examiner Dr. Clay Nichols."

The decision to bring criminal charges or not is within the sole discretion of a prosecutor and not subject to civil process. That too has been explained to you.

"Sometimes, you have to choose your battles."

Your record says much about your skill at choosing.

I will observe though that Sid has an interesting double standard. You minimize the perjury (which Sid calls a "misstatement") of Deputy Davis, while presuming every inconsistency between a Duke medical record and Dr. Nichols' autopsy is both perjury and a fraud. Why is that?

Walt-in-Durham; September 26, 2016 at 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...: There isn't a logical explanation - but that doesn't change the fact it is closed to you and you cannot use it. You are an idiot because you'd rather whine and whimper rather than actually do anything - it's proof that these lawsuits are just a joke to manipulate Crystal. If you cared, you'd actually try to help instead of cry like a little baby.

Laws and rules are often not logical. That doesn't excuse you.; September 26, 2016 at 4:48 PM
kenhyderal said...: Abe and Walt are beginning to sound a lot like Trump Ohio Chair Kathy Miller in blaming Dr. Harr for the discrimination he faces in order to obtain Justice for himself and Crystal; September 26, 2016 at 9:10 PM
The Great Kilgo said...: Kenhyderal,Thank goodness you're back! *lease try to get me out of here! This fellow Sconnoshhoto won't let me out. I'm being held on the fourth floor of s building at No. 4i-pdpkkjetrftp[p; September 26, 2016 at 9:55 PM
Sconnosciuto said...: Kenhyderal,
Non preoccuparti per il tuo amico!; September 26, 2016 at 9:57 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Welcome back! Unfortunately, you did not work on your logic skills during your time away from this blog.

In your criticism of Walt and Abe, you implicitly support Sidney's use of a logical fallacy known as the Nirvana Fallacy: Claiming that a realistic solution is useless because it is not as good as an idealized perfect solution.

As has been discussed repeatedly, legal precedent is an important component of any modern legal system. It is implemented to provide greater consistency in the application of the law. Due to his insistence that he should have access to the law library in Raleigh (his ideal), Sidney refused to use any of the other local law libraries available to him or to use the Internet legal tools (the realistic). As a result of his refusal to accept the realistic solution, Sidney has failed to to properly research, prepare and argue the legal foundation of his cases. His failure to cite appropriate case law, or even to respond to the case law cited by his adversaries, has ensured their failure. He writes many words, but fails to complete his legal analysis.

Sidney treats his lack of access to the most convenient law library as the most important legal issue he has addressed. Crystal can stay in prison until he is given access. Only then will be begin his legal analysis.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy; September 27, 2016 at 4:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 95 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 89 days since the end of June, 157 days since April 23rd, 196 days since the Ides of March and 3,391 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 27, 2016 at 4:44 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

Requiring Sid to follow the same laws, rules and procedures that everyone else has to follow in preparing, filing and arguing court cases is not discrimination.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 27, 2016 at 4:47 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Like a challenged another commenter, can you give a reasonable reason why I, a non-attorney lay citizen, should be denied access to the Federal Courthouse law library?"

Excuses, excuses, excuses. I have told you before that the NCCU law library is open to you and when. I can add that the Elon University law library downtown Raleigh is open to the public from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday to Friday and the D.H. Hill Library at NCSU has an extensive legal collection that includes cases and indexes all located on the 5th floor. Hill is open daily until 10:00 PM. (After that, you need a valid Wolfpack ID card to enter.) You have three options, two of them in Raleigh. You simply don't make use of them. Stop making excuses for your frivolous and meritless filings.

Walt-in-Durham; September 27, 2016 at 5:46 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Abe: So you're saying that all lay pro-se litigants have the same roadblocks put before them that Dr. Harr has had to endure. Maybe it's only because he is seeking Justice for Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong something that the the powers-that-be feel need to be thwarted. One of the weapons used is to put the failure to exactly follow esoteric process as a convenient disqualifier.; September 27, 2016 at 3:57 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny asks: So you're saying that all lay pro-se litigants have the same roadblocks put before them that Dr. Harr has had to endure.

No. Many of Sidney's "roadblocks" are self inflicted.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 27, 2016 at 5:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 94 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 90 days since the end of June, 158 days since April 23rd, 197 days since the Ides of March and 3,392 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 28, 2016 at 3:38 AM
Enigo Montoya said...: Kenhyderal -- You keep using that word (esoteric). I do not think it means what you think it means.; September 28, 2016 at 5:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid has faced no more roadblocks than any other pro se litigant ... if you don't do it right, and keep filing the same incorrect bullshit over and over, you are going to get the same result.

Sid is no different than any other crackpot who keeps suing people trying to force them to settle to make him go away - he's just mad they won't do that.

Kenny, you are an idiot.; September 28, 2016 at 6:50 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 6:50 wrote: "Sid has faced no more roadblocks than any other pro se litigant ... "

As a matter of fact, the U.S. District Court has bent over backward to remove roadblocks, in the case of arguably legitimate filings by Crystal, a pro-se litigant. They did not stand on procedure and reject her Motion for Appropriate Relief (MAR) as being a non-existent pleading in federal court as they would have had she had a lawyer. Instead, the clerk decided to treat it as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and review it accordingly. The difference is, the courts don't want legitimate real pro se litigants to be unduly burdened by procedure. Crystal's pursuit of justice has gotten some breaks along the way to which she is not particularly entitled.

Sid, on the other hand, is and has been prohibited from practicing law. Thus, anything he has done to obtain "justice" for Nifong or Crystal has been in violation of the law and correctly ignored.

His own legal proceedings which he has constructed on his own have failed not because he has been given roadblocks that no other pro-se litigant encounters. He is being held to the same standard as all litigants. The road blocks are, as another poster has written, of his own making. He complains that he has no access to a law library. That is patently false. The NCSU D.H. Hill library is open to him from 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM daily. They have an excellent collection of legal material including state and federal case reports, the NC Digest, the NC General Statutes (also available online) and the U.S. Code Annotated (the un-annotated though official version is available online). Or, he could use the Campbell law library downtown Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM and of course he could come to Durham and use the NCCU law library between the hours of 9:00 AM and 10:00 PM Monday to Friday. It's not lack of access that hinders Sid. It's the fact that he refuses to use the legal resources available to him. Further, he won't ask his good friend Professor Coleman for help. Very few pro se litigants have access to Jim Coleman at all. If anything, Sid has some advantages that most pro se litigants don't have. He just won't learn from them.

Walt-in-Durham; September 28, 2016 at 8:00 AM
A Lawyer said...: If anything, Sid has some advantages that most pro se litigants don't have. He just won't learn from them.

Ding! Ding! We have a winner!; September 28, 2016 at 8:03 AM
kenhyderal said...: And the fact that he is advocating for Crystal Mangum and Michael Nifong play no part in the difficulties he has encountered? Give me a break.; September 28, 2016 at 8:37 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny whined:

"And the fact that he is advocating for Crystal Mangum and Michael Nifong play no part in the difficulties he has encountered? Give me a break."

None at all. The problem is, Sid is consistently on the wrong side of the facts, law and justice in both cases. He makes very bad arguments, in a very unpersuasive manner on behalf of people who have done very bad things. And his arguments are poorly prepared and presented.

Put in simpler terms, Sid loses because he is wrong. He fails to acknowledge and learn from his mistakes, so he repeats them again and again.

Sid will continue to lose and Mangum will remain in prison, not because there is a conspiracy against either or both of them, but because Mangum is guilty of murdering Mr. Daye and Sid is wrong.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 28, 2016 at 10:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Crystal and Nifong are not nearly as important or cared about in the legal community (or any community) as Sid and Kenny want to pretend.; September 28, 2016 at 11:22 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny -- You said "And the fact that he is advocating for Crystal Mangum and Michael Nifong play no part in the difficulties he has encountered? Give me a break."

You're forgetting that Sid has a well-known history of filing lawsuits that were subsequently dropped or dismissed.

Or did the P-T-B's know then that Sid would eventually become the lay advocate for CGM and Nifong?; September 28, 2016 at 1:54 PM
Anonymous said...: The P-T-B's know all ... even the future ... that's why they are the PTB's!; September 28, 2016 at 2:05 PM
kenhyderal said...: Abe said: Mangum is guilty of murdering Mr. Daye and Sid is wrong................................................................................... And thanks to Johnny Cochrane OJ is innocent and thanks Jose Baez Casey Anthony is innocent and thanks to Mark O'Mara George Zimmerman is innocent and thanks to Jerry Schwartzbach Robert Blake is innocent but there is no doubt whatsoever that Crystal is guilty. Yeah that's because she is poor, Black, marginalized and demonized by representatives of the privileged. Shame on you Daniel Meier. She will be vindicated and many will be disgraced.; September 28, 2016 at 2:58 PM
JSwift said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; September 28, 2016 at 3:15 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny sarcastically stated: but there is no doubt whatsoever that Crystal is guilty.

Willful ignorance. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not no doubt whatsoever.

Kenny stated: Yeah that's because she is poor, Black, marginalized and demonized by representatives of the privileged.

Argument by assertion.

Kenny stated: She will be vindicated and many will be disgraced.

Argument by assertion.

Kenny, you might be more successful in persuading others if you did not rely so extensively on intellectually dishonest rhetorical devices.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 28, 2016 at 3:22 PM
guiowen said...: Hello, Daniel Meier,
Don't you understand that Kenhyderal is coming after you? Don't you understand that he is a fighter and a master debater?
You would be well advised to explain to the judges, both in Durham and in Raleigh, why it is that you gave such a pusillanimous defense of that wonderful African-American mother of three. Otherwise Kenny will come after you. This is not a joke!; September 28, 2016 at 3:24 PM
kenhyderal said...: A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; September 28, 2016 at 3:45 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Can I help it if so much of what you say opens you to sarcasm? Can I help it if your intellectually dishonest arguments simply beg for sarcasm?; September 28, 2016 at 3:48 PM
A Lawyer said...: kenhyderal said...
And the fact that he is advocating for Crystal Mangum and Michael Nifong play no part in the difficulties he has encountered? Give me a break.

What about the dozens of lawsuits Dr. Harr filed and lost long before he ever moved to North Carolina and long before Mangum ever made her rape accusations?; September 28, 2016 at 4:06 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ JSwift. In America reasonable doubt for the privileged is quite often unreasonable (if the glove don't fit you must acquit). But for the poor, minority and marginalized citizens, apparently, there is no such assurance and any doubt that is raised is judged unreasonable. No reasonable doubt that Crystal acted in self defence against a larger,drunken enraged Daye who admitted to a violent assault against her, eh?; September 28, 2016 at 4:11 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "And the fact that he is advocating for Crystal Mangum and Michael Nifong play no part in the difficulties he has encountered? Give me a break."

We know that advocating for someone in court is the practice of law. We know that the practice of law without a license is a crime and in Sid's case also violates the injunction against him. Thus, he is not advocating for anyone but himself in court. As far as Sid's difficulties crafting a claim upon which relief may be granted, he has refused to learn, he has refused to use the vast and very substantial law library resources available to him, he has either not asked his friend Jim Coleman for advice, or disregarded Coleman's usually sage advice. Those are all Sid's failings. Anyone else who blundered into court the way Sid does would meet the same fate. If he was a lawyer, the first time he did it, he would be met with Rule 11 sanctions, not the third. Sid keeps getting benefits that no one else would.

Walt-in-Durham; September 28, 2016 at 5:33 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " And thanks to Johnny Cochrane OJ is innocent..."

Nope.

"... and thanks Jose Baez Casey Anthony is innocent..."

Nope.

"... and thanks to Mark O'Mara George Zimmerman is innocent..."

Nope.

"... and thanks to Jerry Schwartzbach Robert Blake is innocent..."

Nope. Your fund of knowledge and understanding of the simple principals of justice is amazingly shallow. None of those people is innocent thanks to their defense lawyers. They were found not guilty. In our system, the jury must find a defendant not guilty unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In each case, the state failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Simpson case, we know because of a subsequent civil trial, that it was quite possible to prove Simpson's liability by a preponderance of the evidence. And that is what happened. A criminal jury found him not guilty even though there was much evidence to make it more likely than not that he was the killer, just not enough to satisfy the higher burden in criminal court.

"... but there is no doubt whatsoever that Crystal is guilty. Yeah that's because she is poor, Black, marginalized and demonized by representatives of the privileged."

No, she convicted herself by lying on the witness stand, by pursuing a self defense strategy that largely made the state's case and by telling the state that she had no evidence of an intervening cause. She shouldn't have stabbed a man.

"Shame on you Daniel Meier. She will be vindicated and many will be disgraced."

The only shame here is on Crystal, you and Sid. Meier did his job well, considering that Crystal and Sid undermined the defense by disclosing that their expert agreed with the state and Crystal alone decided to lie on the witness stand.

Walt-in-Durham; September 28, 2016 at 5:50 PM
JSwift said...: Kennyhyderal asks: No reasonable doubt that Crystal acted in self defence against a larger, drunken enraged Daye who admitted to a violent assault against her, eh?

Before the trial, based on Sidney's description of the evidence (a collection of evidence that turned out to have been cherry-picked to provide only that evidence that supported self-defense and to exclude that evidence that contradicted it), I thought that Crystal would be found not guilty because the evidence supported her self-defense claim (or at least provided reasonable doubt).

The evidence provided in the trial confirmed the evidence Sidney described, but provided additional evidence that supported the prosecution's theory that Daye had broken off the attack and was walking away, apparently having told Crystal to get out (not the caricature you invented that Daye was fleeing the apartment because he was afraid of Crystal--that is a straw man argument). Finally, and most importantly, I found Crystal's testimony to be not credible. Her testimony was the critical piece of evidence.

I agree with the jury's decision to reject her self-defense plea. I would have voted to convict her of manslaughter rather than murder. I believe the no reasonable doubt standard was met.

If you provide a transcript of the trial, I will be happy to review it. Sidney has refused to provide one, preferring to spend his time on frivolous lawsuits rather than to provide evidence that would at the very least result in analysis by readers on this blog that could be interesting.

Kenny sarcastically invokes the Johnny Cochran mantra: f the glove don't fit you must acquit

I believe that OJ Simpson murdered his ex-wife and the waiter. However, I do not believe the no reasonable doubt standard was met in the trial, largely because of an ineffective prosecution.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 28, 2016 at 6:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 93 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 91 days since the end of June, 159 days since April 23rd, 198 days since the Ides of March and 3,393 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 29, 2016 at 4:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...
Sid -- North Carolina Central University School of Law (NCCU) Library has a special collection in Civil Rights Law. Why aren't you using it?

For one reason, it's in Durham and I live in Raleigh. For a second, are you sure that a civilian off the street can get access to that library?; September 29, 2016 at 7:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Like a challenged another commenter, can you give a reasonable reason why I, a non-attorney lay citizen, should be denied access to the Federal Courthouse law library?"

Excuses, excuses, excuses. I have told you before that the NCCU law library is open to you and when. I can add that the Elon University law library downtown Raleigh is open to the public from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday to Friday and the D.H. Hill Library at NCSU has an extensive legal collection that includes cases and indexes all located on the 5th floor. Hill is open daily until 10:00 PM. (After that, you need a valid Wolfpack ID card to enter.) You have three options, two of them in Raleigh. You simply don't make use of them. Stop making excuses for your frivolous and meritless filings.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt. Do you have a physical address for the Elon Law Library supposedly located in the city of Raleigh? I tried to google the address, but to no success. Thanks.; September 29, 2016 at 7:31 AM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: " I believe that OJ Simpson murdered his ex-wife and the waiter. However, I do not believe the no reasonable doubt standard was met in the trial, largely because of an ineffective prosecution...................................... I believe Crystal acted in self-defence. I believe a reasonable doubt standard was not met because of an ineffective defence. That should be grounds for a new trial.; September 29, 2016 at 8:55 AM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
I guess that just goes to show that juries don't see things the way you see them -- especially if you're biased to begin with.; September 29, 2016 at 9:58 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny stated: I believe Crystal acted in self-defence. I believe a reasonable doubt standard was not met because of an ineffective defence. That should be grounds for a new trial.

Argument by assertion.

The repetition of your opinion is not persuasive. No court in the US or Canada would overturn a conviction simply because a friend of the defendant disagrees with the verdict and thus concludes that the defense was ineffective.

In order to win a new trial, you must demonstrate in detail how the defense was ineffective, not just to declare your opinion.

This demonstration requires significant detail. In earlier posts, you have provided a summary of your objections. Those comments have included, among other rhetorical devices, argument by assertion (simply stating your opinion without support), willful ignorance (including only that evidence that supports your conclusion and ignoring evidence that contradicts it; stating the law to be what you want it to be rather than what it is) and double standards (arguing that Crystal's defense was ineffective because Meier did not act in ways that you have elsewhere criticized as unethical).

While your intellectually dishonest arguments may have been successful with a jury (if not adequately countered by the prosecution), intellectually dishonest arguments will not be successful in convincing a court to set aside Crystal's conviction.

You appear to have two arguments: (1) you believe the jury was wrong when they found Crystal's testimony not to be credible and (2) the law is unfair if the esophageal intubation was not an intervening cause. Thus Meier was ineffective (1) because he did not convince the jury to believe Crystal and (2) he did not ask the jury to nullify the law by introducing evidence that does not change Crystal's legal responsibility.

Your continual repetition constitutes willful ignorance. Neither is grounds for a retrial. I suggest that you conduct a detailed analysis of the transcript and evidence, pointing out specific things Meier should have done differently. You may find that posting the transcript on this web site would be beneficial. Comments by other posters would give you an opportunity to test the strength of your more detailed arguments.

Otherwise, you should make plans to welcome Crystal when she is released from prison in February 2026.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 29, 2016 at 11:52 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Sid, You asked "are you sure that a civilian off the street can get access to that library?"

The NCCU Law library is open to the public from (I think) 8am-7pm Monday-Friday. it is not available on weekends.

You also stated "For one reason, it's in Durham and I live in Raleigh."

Public transportation is available that will take you round trip for less than $5.00. (It might even be free for seniors)

One would think that if you were willing to pay a docketing and filing fee of $505.00 for your appeal, you'd be willing to drop $10-$20 on the bus rides it would take you to do the research for the damn thing.; September 29, 2016 at 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Harr -- Take 5 minutes out of your busy schedule, look up the phone numbers for the resources identified, and call them with your questions.; September 29, 2016 at 12:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: You appear to have two arguments: (1) you believe the jury was wrong when they found Crystal's testimony not to be credible and (2) the law is unfair if the esophageal intubation was not an intervening cause. Thus Meier was ineffective (1) because he did not convince the jury to believe Crystal and (2) he did not ask the jury to nullify the law by introducing evidence that does not change Crystal's legal responsibility............................................................. Oh, more than two. I believe the jury was wrong when they found the contradictory, unexamined, statement of Daye credible. I believe the prosecution selectively used evidence found at the scene to construct a scenario that supported Daye's version and completely ignored evidence found at the scene that would support Crystal's version. Meir incompetently never presented evidence to bolster Crystal's version. Evidence that, had he conducted any sort of investigation, was available and was more compelling then what the State presented, I believe the prosecution badgered Crystal in order to confuse her, then, vociferously,labeling her to the Jury as a liar. Disgraced Medical Examiner Nicholls obviously had no recollection of this particular autopsy. With a reputation already in tatters he doubled down on his simplification of the case with his infamous pronouncement she stabbed him he died. Dah. I'm having doubts he even was aware of the chain of events that led to Daye's death. No mention of the presumed diagnosis that took Daye to the critical care unit. No mention of an esophageal intubation, a life threatening error. No mention of cardiac arrest, no mention of brain death. Then, with out mentioning any of these he said it was probably an infection. Yes that was a possibility but that's not what killed him. Even people in a coma are treated for an infection. Give the jury all the facts and let them decide if this was a case where Welch applied.; September 29, 2016 at 4:17 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Argument by assertion (your string of opinions). Willful ignorance (your failure to note that, despite the serious flaws in Nichols' autopsy, Roberts agreed with its conclusion, and that, thanks to Sidney, the prosecution was fully aware of this agreement, thus restricting the ability of the defense to impeach Nichols). Those are logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are intellectually dishonest arguments.

I remind you that you believe the jury verdict was incorrect. Most of the readers on this blog, including myself, have concluded that the jury verdict was the correct one (although some may disagree with second degree murder versus manslaughter).

As a result, the onus is on you (and others who believe the verdict was incorrect) to provide a detailed analysis that points to the specific evidence and portions of the transcript that support your conclusion. Your summary of your opinions is not persuasive. Repeating the same unpersuasive summary of your opinions again and again is not persuasive.

The onus is not on those who do not seek to overturn the verdict to prove its validity.

Unless you devote the time and effort needed to develop a set of detailed arguments, well supported by specific facts, I am forced to conclude that you are not really interested in freeing Magnum as you claim or convincing other that the conviction was unjust. Instead, you prefer to use her case to complain about injustice rather than to actually do anything about it.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 29, 2016 at 4:57 PM
guiowen said...: J. Swift,
Do you actually expect Kenny to do anything other than whine?; September 29, 2016 at 7:34 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Is there any way we can get you to stop whining?; September 29, 2016 at 7:37 PM
A Lawyer said...: kenhyderal said: I believe the prosecution selectively used evidence found at the scene to construct a scenario that supported Daye's version and completely ignored evidence found at the scene that would support Crystal's version. Meir[sic] incompetently never presented evidence to bolster Crystal's version. Evidence that, had he conducted any sort of investigation, was available and was more compelling then what the State presented

What evidence, specifically, are you talking about? How do you know it existed? How do you know that Meier didn't look for it?

I believe the prosecution badgered Crystal in order to confuse her, then, vociferously,labeling her to the Jury as a liar.

Yes, that's called cross-examination. It is a feature of criminal trials in English-speaking counties (including Canada). Meier knew that Mangum could not stand up to it, and went on the record (when the jury was not present) to advise Mangum not to testify. She disregarded his advice-- with devastating consequences for her. Had she not testified, she might well have been acquitted, and would almost certainly have been convicted of nothing worse than manslaughter.; September 29, 2016 at 8:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: Yeah it's easy for an experienced prosecutor to badger and confuse a witness. Crystal took the stand because she believed that if she told the Jury what happened they would not be able to convict her. Since she was innocent she did not want to take a plea deal. The consequence for that would certainly have been difficulty in regaining custody of her children. Since she acted in self defence, only to save her own life she was confident that her truthful testimony would see her acquitted. Win at all cost prosecutors are willing to mislead jurors and conceal evidence that does not fit their version; while half-hearted Court appointed attorneys with little or no commitment to the client which the Court dropped on them expend the minimum effort, do no investigation and simply go through the motions of putting up a defence for a client of no consequence to them. The purpose of trials are to determine the truth not to get convictions.; September 29, 2016 at 9:48 PM
kenhyderal said...: A JSwift: All the logical fallacies you point out I make you, yourself, are also guilty of. Crystal is the only person alive that knows what happened in that apartment. She testified under oath, Daye did not.; September 29, 2016 at 9:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 92 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 92 days since the end of June, 160 days since April 23rd, 199 days since the Ides of March and 3,394 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 30, 2016 at 3:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Just cause you believe it is irrelevant - the jury believed there was no self defense. When he let her go she should have left not gone into the kitchen and grabbed a knife and gone back after him - like she did with Milton.; September 30, 2016 at 3:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Where we're daye's statements contradictory? Again, you ignore that the entire issue is what happened after he kicked in the door and drug Crystal out. Had he been choking her as she claimed, it would have been self defense, had he let her go and she ran into the other room to get a knife and came back at him, it would be murder/manslaughter - thenohsycialnevidenfe backed Daye, the jury believed Daye. He never contradicted himself on that, and he admitted he kicked in the door and drug her out.; September 30, 2016 at 3:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Remember - Kenny is sure that Meier reads this blog daily, and even though Kenny refuses to contact him, Meier should just respond to Kenny to defend himself.

Isn't it funny - it wasn't long ago that Sid posted a letter from Meier to Crystal (sent after Sid contacted Meier), first debunking the plea offer, but also saying that Meier would need to hear directly from Crystal that she was fine with him responding, and willing to waive privilege so Meier couldn't get in trouble. Did rapidly deleted the letter, andnwhen asked said he decided not to follow-up. Does make you wonder if he really is speaking on Crystals behalf. It's clear he isn't interested in the truth.

Kenny and Sid don't want the truth, they want a martyr they can abuse and emotionally manipulate. Oh, and if Sid still wants to flog the plea, of claim Meier lied in that letter - if Crystal has proof Meier lied to her in writing, that would be a huge issue for Meier, odd that she's never raised it.

Sid and Kenny are pathetic, whiny, abusive losers.; September 30, 2016 at 3:38 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny asserted: All the logical fallacies you point out I make you, yourself, are also guilty of.

Please provide details of my logical fallacies.

Crystal is the only person alive that knows what happened in that apartment. She testified under oath, Daye did not.

The victim in a murder trial almost never is able to testify under oath. I can explain why that is the case if you need an explanation.

When the defendant testifies under oath, even when the defendant "is the only person alive who knows what happened," a jury is not required to take the defendant's testimony as truthful. They assess the testimony, comparing it against other evidence, other testimony, evaluate the defendant's demeanor while testifying and reach a judgment as to its accuracy and truthfulness. Although there are errors in some cases, there is no alternative. Relying exclusively on the defendant's testimony would result in few, if any, convictions.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 30, 2016 at 4:35 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Hey, Walt. Do you have a physical address for the Elon Law Library supposedly located in the city of Raleigh? I tried to google the address, but to no success. Thanks."

It's Campbell's law library. Not Elon's which is in Greensboro. Never the less, Campbell's law library is open to members of the public and it's in downtown Raleigh.

Walt-in-Durham; September 30, 2016 at 5:34 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Yeah it's easy for an experienced prosecutor to badger and confuse a witness."

Only if the witness is being untruthful.

"Crystal took the stand because she believed that if she told the Jury what happened they would not be able to convict her."

Well, then she should not have been untruthful about what happened.

"Since she was innocent she did not want to take a plea deal."

She was not innocent. She stabbed a man to death. At best it was self defense. Unfortunately, the physical evidence did not support such a claim.

"The consequence for that would certainly have been difficulty in regaining custody of her children."

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

"Since she acted in self defence, only to save her own life she was confident that her truthful testimony would see her acquitted."

Two problems with that. Her testimony was not truthful and the physical evidence did not support a theory of self defense.

"Win at all cost prosecutors are willing to mislead jurors and conceal evidence that does not fit their version;..."

Except that is not what happened here.

"while half-hearted Court appointed attorneys with little or no commitment to the client which the Court dropped on them expend the minimum effort, do no investigation and simply go through the motions of putting up a defence for a client of no consequence to them."

There you go again impugning a good defense lawyer who did well given his client and Sid had undermined the defense severely and the client would not listen to the good advice she got.

"The purpose of trials are to determine the truth not to get convictions."

In this case, the trial did determine the truth. You just don't like the fact that the physical evidence contradicts Crystal's untruthful testimony.

Walt-in-Durham; September 30, 2016 at 5:44 AM
kenhyderal said...: J Swift said: "The evidence provided in the trial confirmed the evidence Sidney described, but provided additional evidence that supported the prosecution's theory that Daye had broken off the attack and was walking away, apparently having told Crystal to get out (argument by assertion); September 30, 2016 at 9:59 AM
A Lawyer said...: Crystal took the stand because she believed that if she told the Jury what happened they would not be able to convict her. Since she was innocent she did not want to take a plea deal.

I never said she should have taken a plea deal. I said she should have taken her lawyer's advice and not testified. Her testimony is what destroyed her. Meier knew what cross-examination would be like for Crystal, and warned her not to take that risk. She didn't follow her lawyer's advice, and suffered the consequences.; September 30, 2016 at 12:29 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny quotes: J Swift said: "The evidence provided in the trial confirmed the evidence Sidney described, but provided additional evidence that supported the prosecution's theory that Daye had broken off the attack and was walking away, apparently having told Crystal to get out (argument by assertion)

Let's analyze my statement.

The evidence provided in the trial confirmed the evidence Sidney described,

Evidence introduced in the trial included the broken down bathroom door and the clumps of hair. That evidence is consistent with what Sidney described.

That appears to me to be a statement of fact, not an argument by assertion. Do you agree? Do other commenters agree?

but provided additional evidence that supported the prosecution's theory that Daye had broken off the attack and was walking away,

Evidence introduced in the trial included the blood spatter in the hallway and the mattress on the bed, not on the floor. I have discussed this evidence numerous time previously. This blog limits the length of comments, and it is not possible to repeat all facts every time I comment. Moreover, I do not have the time to do so.

That evidence is consistent with Daye's statement and inconsistent with Crystal's testimony. As a result, I conclude that it "supported the prosecution's theory." I did not say that it proved the prosecution's theory beyond any doubt.

As a result, I disagree that this is an argument by assertion. Do you agree? Do other comments agree?

apparently having told Crystal to get out (not the caricature you invented that Daye was fleeing the apartment because he was afraid of Crystal--that is a straw man argument)

I admit that this is speculation, albeit that it is consistent with what I remember from Daye's statement--I thought he claimed that he told Crystal to get out of the apartment. I may be wrong.

However, I included this in response to your straw argument that the prosecution theory involve Daye "fleeing" from the much smaller Crystal in fear of his life. I do not believe the prosecution argued that. I asked on several occasions that you provide the transcript or something else to support this claim, but you refused to provide any information, preferring merely to repeat it.

Repetition of opinions with a refusal to discuss evidence is what is meant by argument by assertion. How am I guilty of that in what you quoted? Any comments from others?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 30, 2016 at 1:13 PM
guiowen said...: J. Swift,
Just note my post from 7:34 p.m. yesterday.; September 30, 2016 at 1:37 PM
JSwift said...: Guiowen,

Thanks for your comments. I don't really expect Kenny to do anything but whine. Now that Walt and I have started identifying the intellectually dishonest arguments he makes, it gives him something else to complain about.

I would appreciate it if you could provide your opinion on whether I was guilty of argument by assertion as Kenny alleged. While I admit to some speculation in my comment, unlike our Canadian friend, I am willing to discuss the support for my opinions.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; September 30, 2016 at 2:09 PM
guiowen said...: J. Swift,
You have to understand that Kenhyderal repeats and repeats words that he thinks make him look good, and the rest of us, look bad. Originally everyone was "disingenuous": "Guiowen disingenuously said that ...". Later it was "projection". Then any criticism of him for his lies was an "ad hominem argument". Now he complains that you argue "by assertion".
As far as this last argument (as to self-defense) you gave good reasons, namely the blood splatters, the mattress on the bed, etc. That is certainly not an argument by assertion; you are referring to established facts. Kenny's own argument is an argument by assertion: his only evidence is his own insistence that Crystal would never lie.; September 30, 2016 at 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous asks: Why were Daye's statements contradictory?

They contradicted Crystal.; September 30, 2016 at 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 91 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 93 days since the end of June, 161 days since April 23rd, 200 days since the Ides of March and 3,395 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; October 1, 2016 at 5:33 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ JSwift: From Officer Bond's notes on her interview with Daye. Quote " Daye said he was standing in the hallway when she went into the kitchen to get "a" knife. He said he turned away to head for the front door when he was stabbed. I asked him why he was going to the front door and he said he was trying to get away from her"...................Get "a" knife? What about the multitude of knives scattered throughout the apartment? Crystal says he was throwing knifes at her. Daye makes no mention of this. She says while he was on top of her and choking her to death she reached out and grabbed one of the knifes laying all about. She trust that knife up at him. The angle of the stab wound confirms that. Blood spatter in a clothed individual does not correlate to the spot where the spatter hits the floor. Although bleeding from the wound, Daye was fully mobile despite a stupefying blood alcohol concentration.; October 1, 2016 at 9:55 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Guiowen Sarcastic, disingenuous, projecting, making ad hominem attacks, arguments by assertion these are all rather mild epithets compared to what Dr. Harr, Crystal and I have to endure here made by the sanctimonious. Hey, sanctimonious, there's a new insult that's ever so appropriate, I can use.; October 1, 2016 at 10:15 AM
guiowen said...: Oh, great! Kenny just learned a new word. Now we'll be hearing "sanctimonious" ad nauseam.; October 1, 2016 at 10:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Kenhyderal,
I guess that just goes to show that juries don't see things the way you see them -- especially if you're biased to begin with.

gui, mon ami,

Hey, even people who may have a bias in a situation can look at it objectively. There's no doubt in my mind that kenhyderal is giving his objective opinion... one with which I, incidentally, agree. The problem with the jury's verdict is that it deliberated without knowing all of the facts or truths of the case. kenhyderal, who has had access to this blog site (the only source of truth and enlightenment regarding the Mangum murder case) has a distinct advantage over jurors... especially with the sabotaged defense put on by Meier with many omissions of facts. Not only was Meier ill prepared, but he purposely sought to have Mangum convicted. Crystal couldn't have done worse had she represented herself, and she would most likely have done much better had she done so.; October 2, 2016 at 4:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
kenhyderal said: I believe the prosecution selectively used evidence found at the scene to construct a scenario that supported Daye's version and completely ignored evidence found at the scene that would support Crystal's version. Meir[sic] incompetently never presented evidence to bolster Crystal's version. Evidence that, had he conducted any sort of investigation, was available and was more compelling then what the State presented

What evidence, specifically, are you talking about? How do you know it existed? How do you know that Meier didn't look for it?

I believe the prosecution badgered Crystal in order to confuse her, then, vociferously,labeling her to the Jury as a liar.

Yes, that's called cross-examination. It is a feature of criminal trials in English-speaking counties (including Canada). Meier knew that Mangum could not stand up to it, and went on the record (when the jury was not present) to advise Mangum not to testify. She disregarded his advice-- with devastating consequences for her. Had she not testified, she might well have been acquitted, and would almost certainly have been convicted of nothing worse than manslaughter.

Hey, A Lawyer.

Let me give you an example of testimonial credibility. The NC Court of Appeal stated that the jury had reason to question Mangum's version of events because Daye's blood was not found in the master bedroom. This is a bogus-misleading statement as blood was found on the mattress in the master bedroom, but the crime lab tech was unable to identify any DNA profile in it. That doesn't rule out that blood specimen as coming from Daye... especially in light of the fact that Mangum wasn't bleeding.

An independent and objective person of reasonable judgment would find that the fact that blood was found on the mattress supports Mangum's scenario and contravenes the state's.

Comprende? Let me know if further edification is required.; October 2, 2016 at 4:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Hey, Walt. Do you have a physical address for the Elon Law Library supposedly located in the city of Raleigh? I tried to google the address, but to no success. Thanks."

It's Campbell's law library. Not Elon's which is in Greensboro. Never the less, Campbell's law library is open to members of the public and it's in downtown Raleigh.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

I don't think so. That entire school (situated in one large building) is locked up tighter than a drum inside a vault at Fort Knox. It is impossible for a lay citizen to get past the lobby which is guarded by a security officer.

Besides, I have not found Campbell Law School to be friendly towards me. After my experiences at Duke University in 2010, there is no way I'm going to push my luck by even stepping inside that building.; October 2, 2016 at 5:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 90 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 94 days since the end of June, 162 days since April 23rd, 201 days since the Ides of March and 3,396 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; October 2, 2016 at 6:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney says:

"This is a bogus-misleading statement as blood was found on the mattress in the master bedroom, but the crime lab tech was unable to identify any DNA profile in it."

"An independent and objective person of reasonable judgment would find that the fact that blood was found on the mattress supports Mangum's scenario and contravenes the state's."

No Sidney you are grasping at straws. The blood could not be identified and that would have to be addressed. A mattress could have blood on it for many reasons. The state prosecution would have eaten your lunch.

Finally Sidney says:

"Besides, I have not found Campbell Law School to be friendly towards me."

Sidney you are acting like a spoiled child using that excuse. You are one of the reasons Magnum is in jail, so get your butt in gear and find a library or online resources so that you can research how to get Magnum a new trial.; October 2, 2016 at 6:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid cares more about himself than helping Crystal - further proof that this is all about abusing and isolating Crystal - he knows what he is doing won't work (he acknowledges that when he loses - that he never expected success, no matter what he says before) - and he won't take steps to learn or do it right, making excuses.

He's just a sad old man who gets his jollies abusing Crystal, and Kenny enjoys helping.; October 2, 2016 at 7:03 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I don't think so. That entire school (situated in one large building) is locked up tighter than a drum inside a vault at Fort Knox. It is impossible for a lay citizen to get past the lobby which is guarded by a security officer."

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Excuses don't count.

"Besides, I have not found Campbell Law School to be friendly towards me. After my experiences at Duke University in 2010, there is no way I'm going to push my luck by even stepping inside that building."

In other words, you didn't even try. Worse, you didn't go to D.H. Hill and use their collection. You are not only ineffective, but you don't even try.

Walt-in-Durham; October 2, 2016 at 6:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 89 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 95 days since the end of June, 163 days since April 23rd, 202 days since the Ides of March and 3,397 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; October 3, 2016 at 3:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "I don't think so. That entire school (situated in one large building) is locked up tighter than a drum inside a vault at Fort Knox. It is impossible for a lay citizen to get past the lobby which is guarded by a security officer."

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Excuses don't count.

"Besides, I have not found Campbell Law School to be friendly towards me. After my experiences at Duke University in 2010, there is no way I'm going to push my luck by even stepping inside that building."

In other words, you didn't even try. Worse, you didn't go to D.H. Hill and use their collection. You are not only ineffective, but you don't even try.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

There's a difference between not trying and wasting one's time. I've had experience with Campbell Law School to know that attempting to use its law library would be fruitless... and maybe even hazardous to my health.; October 3, 2016 at 10:30 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Sid -- What about NCCU? Why don't you address your failure to utilize it as a resource?; October 3, 2016 at 11:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Or the Internet ... why not just use Google? You can find a lot of case law and the rest on there. You clearly aren't interested in doing anything productive, you just want to be able to pretend to Crystal that you are doing something.

You are a sad, pathetic, narcissistic old man who likes to abuse helpless women, clearly.; October 3, 2016 at 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney is right on Campbell:

http://law-campbell.libguides.com/about; October 3, 2016 at 4:42 PM
JSwift said...: The Internet is the obvious solution if he does not want to travel.

In addition, Sidney would be well served to consider seriously the legal answers the lawyers on this board provide. Sidney should ask additional questions to follow up. He might get even more assistance if he was a responsive student. At the very least, he could get some useful informal advice he could use to direct his Internet searches.

Instead, Sidney automatically assumes that someone is conspiring against him if they provide an answer with which he disagrees. He never even considers that he might possibly be wrong--even though he admits he has no legal training and did no research to formulate his conclusions--when lawyers disagree with him on the law.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; October 3, 2016 at 6:42 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

1. The knives stern about the apartment do support Mangum's version, but in my mind are insufficient to overcome the blood spatter/mattress evidence. This is a valid point you make.

2. "The angle of the stab wound confirms that." This would be strong evidence if true. I have not seen the expert testimony that supported this conclusion. Your statement is insufficient. If there is no expert opinion, this is argumentation by assertion. Please provide the expert.

3. "Blood spatter in a clothed individual does not correlate to the spot where the spatter hits the floor. Although bleeding from the wound, Daye was fully mobile despite a stupefying blood alcohol concentration." The blood spatter was found in a different room. Although Daye was mobile as you say, there would have been blood drops that fell as he moved from the bedroom where you allege Magnum stabbed him to the hallway where the blood spatter was found. As a result, I view this comment as a stretch.

4. I do not believe the statement you attributed to Daye is consistent with your version of him "fleeing" from Magnum in fear of the smaller woman. I continue to characterize that assertion as a straw man argument.

However, I complement you. You make at least one valid point, and if there is expert testimony to support the angle of the wound, you may have made an argument that truly supports your conclusion. I urge you to follow up with the evidence.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; October 3, 2016 at 6:53 PM
A Lawyer said...: There's a difference between not trying and wasting one's time.

Then why did you waste your time suing DA Freeman when the law is crystal-clear that she has prosecutorial immunity?; October 3, 2016 at 8:22 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ JSwift; Let me quote Walt in that "Walt said...
"I do want to give credit where it is due. Sid points out the problem of downward trajectory of the knife and the wounds reported. Good catch Sid. This report does border on the magic knife theory. Much needs to be explained. For that reason, and all along, I have called this at worst a Second Degree Murder case"; October 3, 2016 at 8:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 88 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 96 days since the end of June, 164 days since April 23rd, 203 days since the Ides of March and 3,398 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; October 4, 2016 at 2:51 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Walt was not the expert I was looking for. I do not recall this exchange. Can you provide more information?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; October 4, 2016 at 2:52 AM
kenhyderal said...: Excerpt from Dr. Harr's initial examination of the autopsy report.............................................................................."Anatomically there are reasons to doubt the April 14, 2011 Report of Autopsy Examination. According to both reports, the stab wound would have been in the left seventh intercostal space… here. It is very likely that a puncture could have easily penetrated the colon and/or stomach. The April 13, 2011 investigative report well documents that the colon at the splenic flexure was injured.
However, the April 14th report states that the fundus of the stomach had a sutured lesion. This is fundamentally impossible as the fundus of the stomach, which is the part most superiorly positioned, is no where near the colon. Both organs could not be penetrated with a single stab wound. The April 14th autopsy report is also flawed when it suggests that the knife traveled in a downward direction after penetrating the skin. Notice the position of the diaphragm… and the lungs are sitting atop them. In order to pierce the diaphragm and the lung from the 7th intercostal space, a knife would have to proceed in an upward direction.
The left kidney is located along the back wall of the abdominal cavity, and would require a strenuous thrust up to the hilt of a paring knife to possibly reach the left kidney, and I do not believe it could be reached without first going through the spleen. And it could not be reached if the blade followed a downward course as determined by the medical examiner"-------------------------------------------------. Dr. Nichols was never examined about the angle of the penetration. If the thrust was upward that would confirm Daye was on top of Crystal and that would mean it was self-defence. Overworked and careless Dr. Nicholls appeared to have no recollection of this autopsy.; October 4, 2016 at 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"However, the April 14th report states that the fundus of the stomach had a sutured lesion. This is fundamentally impossible as the fundus of the stomach, which is the part most superiorly positioned, is no where near the colon. Both organs could not be penetrated with a single stab wound."

Wrong. A knife penetrating the fundus of the stomach can penetrate the colon. I've performed abdominal surgery, gastric surgery, many times. How many times has harr ever performed abdominal surgery?; October 4, 2016 at 10:12 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

Thank you for the information.

I do not have the necessary medical knowledge to make an independent judgment. As a result, I must rely on a medical expert to interpret the findings for me.

However, I cannot accept Dr. Harr as a disinterested medical expert. Although he certainly deserves credit for having identified the esophageal intubation documented in the Duke medical records, his bias often impairs his judgment. For example, his conclusion related to the Duke Lacrosse Frame--that the failure to find DNA from the defendants in and on Magnum in an alleged rape in which the perpetrators ejaculated in and on her was not exculpatory evidence--is utterly preposterous, demonstrating either a complete lack of medical knowledge and an ignorance of the law or a willingness to twist the truth to match his preconceived conclusions.

Can you find a different medical professional to provide their analysis? Did Roberts address this question in her report? She would have been the logical choice.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; October 4, 2016 at 12:52 PM
Anonymous said...: And, of course, Kenny still assumes that none of the Defense attorneys looked into that, or talked to Dr. Roberts about that ... and since those attorneys won't randomly come on this board and respond to Kenny's comments, he must be right ...

He will say he knows Meier monitors this blog, and challenge him to tell Kenny he's wrong.; October 4, 2016 at 3:00 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr Roberts wrote her review of the autopsy Quote "The wound pathway under "Injuries" on page 2 of the autopsy is reported as roughly downwards with perforation of the lower left lung lobe ,diaphragm, stomach, colon and kidney. She at no time confirms this and in her review states. "In the autopsy report when referring to this perforation in the section titled Pathological Diagnosis Injuries and Summary the report only lists "colon" as being perforated without further designation of area. In a single area of the autopsy report under the Gasrointestinal sections it lists the sigmoid flexure portion of the colon as being perforated. There are 2 obvious problems with this statement. A flexure of the colon is where it takes a sharp bend near the liver and spleen and so they are called hepatic splenic flexures respectively. The sigmoid colon is not labeled as a flexure anatomically as it is a short area of curving between the descending colon and the rectum. The second and most important issue with the autopsy report noting injury to this area of the colon is that it would be physically impossible for a single knife wound that originated in the chest wall to perforate the sigmoid colon. The sigmoid colon is located in the pelvis next to the rectum and there is no second stab wound in the pelvis area in this case. The most logical explanation for the statement that the sigmoid flexure of the colon was perforated is an error in dictation or transcription and lack of careful editing. Maybe we can get Dr. Anonymous to give his take on Dr. Harr's contention that the knife thrust had to be upward.; October 4, 2016 at 4:36 PM
JSwift said...: What is the quote from Roberts and what is from you? Your quotation marks are unclear.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; October 4, 2016 at 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr Roberts wrote her review of the autopsy:

The wound pathway under "Injuries" on page 2 of the autopsy is reported as roughly downwards with perforation of the lower left lung lobe ,diaphragm, stomach, colon and kidney.

She at no time confirms this and in her review states:

In the autopsy report when referring to this perforation in the section titled Pathological Diagnosis Injuries and Summary the report only lists "colon" as being perforated without further designation of area. In a single area of the autopsy report under the Gasrointestinal sections it lists the sigmoid flexure portion of the colon as being perforated. There are 2 obvious problems with this statement. A flexure of the colon is where it takes a sharp bend near the liver and spleen and so they are called hepatic splenic flexures respectively. The sigmoid colon is not labeled as a flexure anatomically as it is a short area of curving between the descending colon and the rectum. The second and most important issue with the autopsy report noting injury to this area of the colon is that it would be physically impossible for a single knife wound that originated in the chest wall to perforate the sigmoid colon. The sigmoid colon is located in the pelvis next to the rectum and there is no second stab wound in the pelvis area in this case. The most logical explanation for the statement that the sigmoid flexure of the colon was perforated is an error in dictation or transcription and lack of careful editing.

Maybe we can get Dr. Anonymous to give his take on Dr. Harr's contention that the knife thrust had to be upward.:; October 4, 2016 at 5:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Everyone do not forget about the MAR! It is the only avenue of relief for Mangum. Everything else is water over the dam and history.; October 4, 2016 at 7:11 PM
kenhyderal said...: Sorry JSwift for being careless with the quotations. Thanks Anonymous for making it clear; October 4, 2016 at 8:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 87 days to exonerate and free Mangum.

It has been 97 days since the end of June, 165 days since April 23rd, 204 days since the Ides of March and 3,399 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; October 5, 2016 at 3:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

Yesterday, October 4th, I filed an Informal Brief appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, VA. CLICK HERE to view the first date/time-stamped page.

I will post the entire brief, along with its exhibits, on Friday, October 7, 2016.

As you were.; October 5, 2016 at 4:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
There's a difference between not trying and wasting one's time.

Then why did you waste your time suing DA Freeman when the law is crystal-clear that she has prosecutorial immunity?

Hey, A Lawyer.

If I am not mistaken, prosecutorial immunity extends only if the prosecutor is properly performing her duties. My contention is that by ignoring her implicit duty to consider and review in good-faith all evidence and reports of criminality, she was not within the protected bounds of immunity.

Read my appeal brief... which I will post on Friday, for more elucidation.; October 5, 2016 at 4:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid, it's been explained to you that she has no jurisdiction, and no duty to meet with anyone.

You are still an idiot, and will still lose.

I am sure your appeal brief is the same crap you've filed before, and you will, once again, lose.

And, you are mistaken - that's been explained to you - you just won't learn.

Are you really this sad and pathetic of an old man, or is this a joke to you like it is to everyone else but Kenny who believes you, and Crystal, who sadly you have deluded?; October 5, 2016 at 6:35 AM
A Lawyer said...: If I am not mistaken, prosecutorial immunity extends only if the prosecutor is properly performing her duties.

No one needs immunity for properly performing their duties. By definition, immunity shields prosecutors from judicial scrutiny for improper actions.; October 5, 2016 at 12:43 PM
A Lawyer said...: To the Anon. at 1:52 a.m.-- would you please take your racist claptrap somewhere else? There are grown-ups trying to have a conversation here.; October 5, 2016 at 12:45 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 210 Newer› Newest»

Friday, September 9, 2016

Unabashed mainstream media bias against Nifong, Mangum, and Harr

210 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me