justice4nifong: Libel lawsuit: Harr v. WRAL-5 and Fix-the-Court

Saturday, January 7, 2017

Libel lawsuit: Harr v. WRAL-5 and Fix-the-Court

80 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...

Sid,

Between Mangum' habeas petition and your latest lolsuit, it looks like your 2017 started with a thud instead of a bang. 2017 is shaping up to be another year of failure and frustration for you in your continuing quest to subvert justice for your own self aggrandizement and personal benefit.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe.

I believe the absolute defense against libel is the truth. Is it your opinion that the articles by WRAL and Fix-the-Court are accurate? That my lawsuit against Duke University was tied to the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case? That I accosted Justice Breyer following his interview at Duke University?; January 7, 2017 at 6:27 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
There are always time constraints involved. Instead of taking time to post the nonsense of the rulings against me, I believe that my time would be better spent filing lawsuits such as the one I filed today.

How is your time better spent by filing yet another lawsuit that is doomed to an early dismissal?

Do you know the quote, attributed to Einstein, about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Hey, A Lawyer.

To my knowledge, the current lawsuit is the only libel lawsuit that I have ever filed. How does that relate to the Einstein saying?; January 7, 2017 at 6:37 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Two more questions, Dr. Harr:

1. Did you ask your friend Prof. Coleman to look at your Complaint before you filed it?

2. Are you familiar with Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

Regarding 1.: no, I did not contact James Coleman. No need to drag him into my lawsuit. I would want no retribution against him for helping me.

Regarding 2.: no, but I looked it up. Still I do not know how it affects me.; January 7, 2017 at 6:46 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
1. No federal jurisdiction.
2. First allegedly-libelous statement is not "of and concerning" Sidney Harr.
3. Second allegedly-libelous statement is privileged as fair comment on a judicial proceeding.
Result: dismissal, possibly with sanctions.

A Lawyer, federal jurisdiction is based on diversity as one of the co-defendants is a resident of another state. Second, the libelous statement is about me... I don't see how you can say it was not of or concerning me. Is it your opinion that the libelous statement was about Mangum or Nifong?
Thirdly, I do not see how you contend that a statement is privileged when it is in fact false. I require much further elucidation regarding your last statement.; January 7, 2017 at 6:54 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid is making a mistake filing against private companies. The State generally doesn't seek sanctions against frivolous lawsuits - the private entities will.

This will fail as well. Of course, now that this is strictly libel, he's showing it's no longer about Crystal, it's all just about himself.

You fail to take into account that the private companies in question produced fraudulent and false statements about me. If Fix-the-Court's statements about me were true, then it would not have removed them. WRAL was also misleading its audience by claiming that my lawsuit against Duke was related to the Duke Lacrosse case.

Why would they even consider trying to get sanctions against me when I am the wronged party and they are the perpetrators?; January 7, 2017 at 7:01 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

You repeatedly preach that Crystal Mangum was the victim/ accuser in theDuke Rape case. There is and never ws any evidence that Crystal toldthe truth when she claimed she had been raped. Each and every time you repeat that, you are preaching that theinnocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players are guilty of a rather heinous crime.

If any statement is libelous, that one is. Yet you call a few mistaken but innocuous statements libel and I believe you are hoping for a large financial settlement.

Ca we say HYPOCRISY, boys and girls?

To refer to Mangum as being a victim/accuser in the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case is definitely not libelous. The statements made by Fix-the-Court and WRAL are serious... especially the claim that I accosted the U.S. Supreme Court justice. WRAL's article was published for malicious purposes solely... doing the same that they've done to Nifong and Mangum. It was a feeble attempt to discredit me.

As far as a financial settlement, what do you consider large?; January 7, 2017 at 7:10 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anonymous at 3:24 AM wrote: "No. You posting your complaints is an example of, if you cant impress people with your brilliance, then try to baffle them with Bull Shit. Except your BS is so woefully inadequate you only baffle yourself into thinking you are brilliant."

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

On the issue of Sid's latest filing, WRAL's lawyers are looking forward to some well paid and ultimately successful briefing. I do have a question, now that Brodhead is retiring, Sid, is this an indication that you plan on shifting your litigious attention to Jim Goodman, the triangle's leading limousine liberal?

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

Don't know what a limousine liberal is. That said, you need to keep in mind that I am the victim in this scenario. WRAL and Fix-the-Court made false statements about me for the purpose of demonizing me and discrediting me... not unlike what the mainstream media did to Nifong and Mangum.

The fact that Brodhead is retiring is totally irrelevant to me. I have nothing against anyone, including Goodmon and Roth. Unfortunately, however, they both refused to even communicate with me about the errant news articles. Like Wake County D.A. Lorrin Freeman, they ignored me. Their unwillingness to communicate with me left me with no alternative but to file a lawsuit.; January 7, 2017 at 7:21 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
It's too bad you're not in New York. I checked and they do have conjugal visits there.

gui, mon ami,

You're getting ahead of yourself. We're not even married. Does New York limit conjugal visits to married couples?

But the fact is that Crystal will be out of jail soon.; January 7, 2017 at 7:26 PM
guiowen said...: In fact, Sidney, New York only allows conjugal visits if you are married. California allows conjugal visits with "registered domestic partners", but is the only state to allow this.NC does not allow these visits. However, as Crystal's husband, you could be her "pro-se litigant", which would allow you to spend considerably more time with her.; January 7, 2017 at 8:17 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "....federal jurisdiction is based on diversity as one of the co-defendants is a resident of another state."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT [Manual Buzzer Noise] Run him!

Sid, you should probably familiarize yourself with the concept of diversity. If you had any inclination to learn, you could read 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) which requires complete diversity of the plaintiff[s] and defendants. [For your elucidation, it's available online or at the NCSU Hill Library.] You should also familiarize yourself with 28 U.S.C. §1441 as lawyers for WRAL will be citing that statute to you. Of course, if you had even spent the shortest period of time on the phone with your good friend James Coleman, he would have educated you. But, you didn't. So once again you file a frivolous lawsuit.

Walt-in-Durham; January 7, 2017 at 8:35 PM
A Lawyer said...: Dr. Harr:

1. As Walt pointed out, you do not have "complete diversity" (Google that phrase if they won't let you into the law library) and therefore there is no federal jurisdiction. So your case will end right there. If, however, any court were to ever look at the merits:

2. Your initial lawsuit specifically mentioned the Duke Lacrosse case, so how can it be false to say that your lawsuit was "related" to that case? "Related" is a pretty broad term.

3. Even if it is false to say that you "accosted" Justice Breyer, it is not defamatory-- the word "accost" (unlike, say, "assault") does not imply any criminal or immoral activity.

4. Your Complaint also says it was false to say that your prior lawsuits against Duke were "frivolous and vexatious." But it was the court that made those findings, and the media have a right to repeat the court's findings.

Consider yourself enlightened.; January 7, 2017 at 9:01 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
In fact, Sidney, New York only allows conjugal visits if you are married. California allows conjugal visits with "registered domestic partners", but is the only state to allow this.NC does not allow these visits. However, as Crystal's husband, you could be her "pro-se litigant", which would allow you to spend considerably more time with her.

gui, mon ami, you make a strong case for me getting hitched... hah, I'll have to consider your suggestions, you matchmaker you.; January 8, 2017 at 4:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "....federal jurisdiction is based on diversity as one of the co-defendants is a resident of another state."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT [Manual Buzzer Noise] Run him!

Sid, you should probably familiarize yourself with the concept of diversity. If you had any inclination to learn, you could read 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) which requires complete diversity of the plaintiff[s] and defendants. [For your elucidation, it's available online or at the NCSU Hill Library.] You should also familiarize yourself with 28 U.S.C. §1441 as lawyers for WRAL will be citing that statute to you. Of course, if you had even spent the shortest period of time on the phone with your good friend James Coleman, he would have educated you. But, you didn't. So once again you file a frivolous lawsuit.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

Even if the lawsuit was not properly filed, and I am not admitting that it was, that doesn't mean that it is frivolous. If it is required that the lawsuit against WRAL be filed with the state, then that is what shall be done. The case's merits are just as strong. Same with Fix-the-Court. I will refile in the appropriate court if required... even if it means filing in Chicago. But since both defendants are linked, I believe that my lawsuit will be accepted by the federal court as filed.; January 8, 2017 at 5:04 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: " But since both defendants are linked, I believe that my lawsuit will be accepted by the federal court as filed."

Beliefs, like supposition are not substitutes for learning.

Walt-in-Durham; January 8, 2017 at 5:22 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Dr. Harr:

1. As Walt pointed out, you do not have "complete diversity" (Google that phrase if they won't let you into the law library) and therefore there is no federal jurisdiction. So your case will end right there. If, however, any court were to ever look at the merits:

2. Your initial lawsuit specifically mentioned the Duke Lacrosse case, so how can it be false to say that your lawsuit was "related" to that case? "Related" is a pretty broad term.

3. Even if it is false to say that you "accosted" Justice Breyer, it is not defamatory-- the word "accost" (unlike, say, "assault") does not imply any criminal or immoral activity.

4. Your Complaint also says it was false to say that your prior lawsuits against Duke were "frivolous and vexatious." But it was the court that made those findings, and the media have a right to repeat the court's findings.

Consider yourself enlightened.

Hey, A Lawyer.

Regarding 1. about diversity... Look, if the case is filed in the wrong court, then I will file my case against all defendants in the appropriate state courts. I do not believe that will be the finding, however.

Regarding 2. about the Duke Lacrosse case... the fact of the matter is that my lawsuit was not about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. It was about the 2010 discrimination by Duke. For you to suggest as you have requires an incredible leap... not reasonable. Can you tell me how my lawsuit against Duke was tied to the Duke Lacrosse case? In other words, if I mentioned Charles Manson in my initial brief, could it be inferred that my lawsuit was tied to the murder of Sharon Tate? I don't think so.

Regarding 3. about "defamatory" You should know that accosting someone does speak to one's character... and not in a positive way. It was stated not only as a "fact" but was given as the reason for the security escorting me off campus. It gives the impression that my character is boisterous, aggressive, and threatening... especially to accost a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. The fact that the statement was false makes it libelous defamation. (The lawyer who accosted Ivanka Trump on the airplane placed him in a bad light... and he was escorted off the plane.) The actions by printing false statements is not without consequences.

Regarding 4. about repeating the court's findings I have no problem with the media reporting and quoting the judge. What I have a problem with is the one-sided nature of the article. They didn't even attempt to reach me for comment so I could respond to the accusations.; January 8, 2017 at 5:33 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: " But since both defendants are linked, I believe that my lawsuit will be accepted by the federal court as filed."

Beliefs, like supposition are not substitutes for learning.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, unlike you, I am not formally educated in the law, therefore at times I do what I believe to be appropriate. If it is not, then I will learn by my mistake.; January 8, 2017 at 5:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 38 days until February 14th. You have 358 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 8 days since the end of 2016, 191 days since the end of June 2016, 259 days since April 23, 2016, 298 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,142 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,493 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,338 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 8, 2017 at 7:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"Walt, unlike you, I am not formally educated in the law, therefore at times I do what I believe to be appropriate. If it is not, then I will learn by my mistake."

Sid, you have consistently demonstrated a remarkable inability and/or refusal to learn from your past mistakes. As long as I have been reading your shlogs you have blamed your many failures to accomplish your stated objectives on powerful forces conspiring against you and Mangum. The only "mistake" you have ever admitted to is your failure to recognize just how powerful and devious those forces are. Not only do you ignore the opinions of Walt, a Lawyer and the arguments advanced by opposing counsel, you admit to doing no legal research before filing your lolsuits. You have referred to the ruling against you as "nonsense" and have said they "contain no information, except the standard: "no errors were made, blah, blah, blah." These are not the words and actions of a man who learns - either from his mistakes or otherwise.

As a result of you inability to learn from your mistakes, you have repeatedly filed the same defective claims against the same people multiple times, resulting in sanctions being imposed against you on at least two occasions. I see no indication that this pattern of behavior on your part will change in the future.

That is one of the reasons why you will continue to fail.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 8, 2017 at 7:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Federal Diversity jurisdiction requires complete Diversity - you killed that by also suing WRAL. You really need to do research. If you sue separately - your lawsuit against fix the courts can be federal - your lawsuit against WRAL can't.; January 8, 2017 at 7:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Why do you believe your lawsuit will be accepted without proper Diversity jurisdiction? The law is clear - and you don't fit. Why would they make an exception for you?; January 8, 2017 at 7:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"I believe the absolute defense against libel is the truth. Is it your opinion that the articles by WRAL and Fix-the-Court are accurate? That my lawsuit against Duke University was tied to the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case? That I accosted Justice Breyer following his interview at Duke University?"

I do not believe the statements attributed by you to WRAL and Fix-the-Court are defamatory of you. I also believe they are accurate. However, the case will never get that far because you did not bother to google "diversity jurisdiction" before filing your lolsuit.

When will you start learning?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 8, 2017 at 7:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, Walt.

Even if the lawsuit was not properly filed, and I am not admitting that it was, that doesn't mean that it is frivolous."

It is res ipsa loquitur that the suits you filed are frivolous.

"If it is required that the lawsuit against WRAL be filed with the state, then that is what shall be done."

In other words you will file your frivolous suits in state court.

"The case's merits are just as strong. Same with Fix-the-Court. I will refile in the appropriate court if required... even if it means filing in Chicago. But since both defendants are linked, I believe that my lawsuit will be accepted by the federal court as filed."

You presume the merits are strong, like you always presume facts not in evidence. What you have believed about your previous frivolous lawsuits has always been irrelevant. That is what will happen here.; January 8, 2017 at 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"
Walt, unlike you, I am not formally educated in the law, therefore at times I do what I believe to be appropriate. If it is not, then I will learn by my mistake."

It is obvious, in spite of your delusional claims about your grasp of the law, that you are not formally educated.

It is also obvious you DO NOT learn from your mistakes. How can you when you remain in denial that your mistakes are mistakes.; January 8, 2017 at 8:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, A Lawyer.

Regarding 1. about diversity... Look, if the case is filed in the wrong court, then I will file my case against all defendants in the appropriate state courts. I do not believe that will be the finding, however."

Meaning you will file your latest frivolous lawsuit in a state court. Again, what you believe about court findings has been repeatedly been shown to be delusional on your part.

"Regarding 2. about the Duke Lacrosse case... the fact of the matter is that my lawsuit was not about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. It was about the 2010 discrimination by Duke. For you to suggest as you have requires an incredible leap... not reasonable. Can you tell me how my lawsuit against Duke was tied to the Duke Lacrosse case? In other words, if I mentioned Charles Manson in my initial brief, could it be inferred that my lawsuit was tied to the murder of Sharon Tate? I don't think so."

You have claimed that you were singled out for discrimination by Duke because of your support for what DA Nifong did in the Duke Rape Hoax. And you wore your J4N sweatshirt to the event and you, in violation of Duke's non solicitation policy, solicited support for your advocacy for Mike Nifong. That you are too delusional to realize it is irrelevant.

"Regarding 3. about "defamatory" You should know that accosting someone does speak to one's character... and not in a positive way. It was stated not only as a "fact" but was given as the reason for the security escorting me off campus. It gives the impression that my character is boisterous, aggressive, and threatening... especially to accost a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. The fact that the statement was false makes it libelous defamation. (The lawyer who accosted Ivanka Trump on the airplane placed him in a bad light... and he was escorted off the plane.) The actions by printing false statements is not without consequences."

If I understand libel, you have to prove the defendants deliberately, willfully printed information about you which they knew was false, and that they had intrnt to harm you. I say you have not even come close to that. That you took ooffense at it does not make a case for libel

"Regarding 4. about repeating the court's findings I have no problem with the media reporting and quoting the judge. What I have a problem with is the one-sided nature of the article. They didn't even attempt to reach me for comment so I could respond to the accusations."

You accept William Cohan's volume as some kind of gospel. Did you ever ask William Cohan why he interviewed anyone but Nifong, why he never verified what Nifong told him with other sources, why he had no end notes, wy he ad no list of references? No you didn't. You do not believe in finding out all sides of an issue if those sides of the issue contradict your pre conceived notions. In any event, you were not consulted because no one thoufght you were important enough to be consulted, and that is what has you p---ed.; January 8, 2017 at 8:59 AM
kenhyderal said...: Duke clearly discriminated against Dr. Harr and Fix the Court and WRAL clearly libeled him. The unjust and corrupt American Legal System, supported and maintained by it's practitioners for their own benefit, will attempt to thwart his quest for Justice by raising esoteric procedural processes to try and dismiss his valid charges; justice be damned. Ever wonder why profligate American Lawyers are defending this indefensible and self-enriching construct?; January 8, 2017 at 9:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Duke clearly discriminated against Dr. Harr and Fix the Court and WRAL clearly libeled him. The unjust and corrupt American Legal System, supported and maintained by it's practitioners for their own benefit, will attempt to thwart his quest for Justice by raising esoteric procedural processes to try and dismiss his valid charges; justice be damned. Ever wonder why profligate American Lawyers are defending this indefensible and self-enriching construct?"

Yet again Kenhyderal documents he can not comprehend the truth.; January 8, 2017 at 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...: What Kenhydeal thinks is an "esoteric procedural [process]" is dismissing charges of rape against innocent caucasian men accused of rape by a black woman because there is no evidence that the ctime ever happened.; January 8, 2017 at 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

You are a whiny idiot. There is nothing unfair or esoteric about the process - the rules exist so everyone has a level playing field. The fact that Dr. Harr doesn't think the rules should apply to him is his fault, not the system. As has been easily explained above - he can file his lawsuits, he just has to do it right.

Are you always this much of a whiny little baby? Have you ever done, or said, anything productive in your life? You are more pathetic than Sid (and that's saying a lot) because he at least tries.; January 8, 2017 at 10:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Troll on, kenny!; January 8, 2017 at 10:28 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney asks: the fact of the matter is that my lawsuit was not about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. It was about the 2010 discrimination by Duke. For you to suggest as you have requires an incredible leap... not reasonable. Can you tell me how my lawsuit against Duke was tied to the Duke Lacrosse case?

Sidney, please don't be disingenuous.

You complaint specifically alleged that Duke discriminated against you because you are a Nifong supporter. (You did not broaden your allegation to include racial discrimination until after subsequent filings.) You wore a Justice4Nifong t-shirt to the event and handed out Justice4Nifong business cards.

Your support for Nifong is based on what you believe was the unfair treatment of Nifong resulting from his actions in the Duke lacrosse case. In other words, you alleged that Duke discriminated against you because of your opinions regarding the Duke lacrosse case.

Your lawsuit was "tied to" or "related to" the Duke lacrosse case because of the nature of your specific complaint. You tied it to that case.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; January 8, 2017 at 10:28 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said; " "There is nothing unfair or esoteric about the process - the rules exist so everyone has a level playing field"..............A level playing field is not a prominent characteristic of the American Justice System. Poor and minority litigants and defendants are systematically disadvantaged. America has more Lawyers per capita then any other nation on earth. The system is constructed for their advantage and for the privileged clients who can afford their services. Prosecuting Attorneys unfairly target the poor and minorities for conviction and unprincipled Judges acquiesce. Everyone recognizes that it's unfair system, especially for poor and minorities. All people of goodwill realize this is in, drastic, need of reform and it's victims cry out for justice; January 8, 2017 at 3:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said; " "There is nothing unfair or esoteric about the process - the rules exist so everyone has a level playing field"..............A level playing field is not a prominent characteristic of the American Justice System. Poor and minority litigants and defendants are systematically disadvantaged. America has more Lawyers per capita then any other nation on earth. The system is constructed for their advantage and for the privileged clients who can afford their services. Prosecuting Attorneys unfairly target the poor and minorities for conviction and unprincipled Judges acquiesce. Everyone recognizes that it's unfair system, especially for poor and minorities. All people of goodwill realize this is in, drastic, need of reform and it's victims cry out for justice".

Kenhyderal again calling it an esoteric procedure process that Crystal did not get away with falsely accusing innocent men of raping her, or, for that matter, that Crystal did not get away with murder.; January 8, 2017 at 3:38 PM
guiowen said...: As usual, Kenhyderal is whining.
Wah, wah, wah!; January 8, 2017 at 4:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Whiny baby Kenny,

No one is prosecuting Sid - the comments were aimed at his filing of a civil suit in the wrong Court, and you whining about that. Sid is the one prosecuting the case - why shouldn't the rules apply to him? They aren't complicated, and if he follows the rules, he will get his chance in court. But he needs complete diversity for Federal, so he either needs to file the entire lawsuit in state court in NC, or file 2 lawsuits - sue WRAL in state court and Fix the Courts in state or Federal. How is that unfair or anything else?; January 8, 2017 at 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"To refer to Mangum as being a victim/accuser in the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case is definitely not libelous."

This comes down to,how do you prove Crystal told the truth when she claimed she was raped. You and your alter ego Krnhyderal have provided zero proof rhar she did. Etgo, when yoy say Crystal is the victim/accuser in the Duke rape case, you are publishing false information which says rhe peoplr sshe accused are guilty of a crime, which is defamatory. That you are too stupid and racist to realize it does not get you off the hppk for libel.

"The statements made by Fix-the-Court and WRAL are serious... especially the claim that I accosted the U.S. Supreme Court justice."

It takes more tha your word that you felt dissed to make it libel.

"WRAL's article was published for malicious purposes solely... doing the same that they've done to Nifong and Mangum. It was a feeble attempt to discredit me."

No one discredited DA Nifong and Crystal Mangum except DA Nifong and Crystal Mangum.

"As far as a financial settlement, what do you consider large?"

You yourself once posted in this blog that if anyone deserved $290 million from Duke you did.; January 9, 2017 at 2:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

You got it wrong when you said that the media lionized the Lacrosse defendants in spite of no evidence of guilt or innocence was presented.

This gets back to your legally irrelevant claim that no one ever proved Crystal lied about being raped. To make a case for rape, Nifong had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crystal told the truth. The AG pointed out there was absolutely no evidence that the crime ever happened. In spite of that you continue to pteach the false statement that Crystal was the "victim/accuser" in a rape. Neither tou nor your alter ego Kenhyderal have ever presented any evidence that a rape happened. And you willfully ignore the fact that Nifong concealed from the defense evidence that they could not have perpetrated the crime Crystal alleged.; January 9, 2017 at 3:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Correction f typo:

You yourself once posted in this blog that if anyone deserved $20(TWENTY) million from Duke you did.; January 9, 2017 at 4:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

You have complained loud and long that there was no trial in the Duke Lacrosse Case.

With regard to Crystal's murder trial, you proclaimed loud and long that the state did not have a case against Crystal and would drop the charges rather than go to trial.

The state had no case against the Lacrosse players who were accused of raping Crystal Mangum. Again, while you broadcast repeatedly that there was no evidence Crystal lied about being raped you have provided zero evidence that she ever told the truth.

So, since there was no case against the Lacrosse defendants, why should there have been a trial.

Again I say, neither you nor your mouthpiece Kenhyderal have ever presented any evidence that the state had a case.; January 9, 2017 at 4:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 37 days until February 14th. You have 357 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 9 days since the end of 2016, 192 days since the end of June 2016, 260 days since April 23, 2016, 299 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,143 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,494 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,337 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 9, 2017 at 4:44 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: " I am not formally educated in the law, therefore at times I do what I believe to be appropriate. If it is not, then I will learn by my mistake."

That would be a first. Witnesseth Harr II, and Harr III.

Walt-in-Durham; January 9, 2017 at 5:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

With regard to the letter you received from VP Schoenfeld:

VP Schoenfeld made it explicitly clear to you how you had violated Duke's non solicitation policy.

You, as a manifestation of your delusional megalomania declared that what you admitted you did, was not solicitation. You never did get it, that Duke University, not you, decides what violates Duke's solicitation policy.

And you then saw it as an opportunity to shake down Duke for a big settlement.; January 9, 2017 at 5:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

With regard to whether or not your lawsuits against Duke involved your advocacy for Mike Nifong and his performance in the Duke Rape Hoax:

You blogged that you had sent letters to the President of Duke and to the Dean of Duke's Law School. You alleged that after they received the letters, they conspired to harass you, because of your advocacy for Nifong. Your "proof" was a statement to the effect, what else could it have been.

Then you were challenged to show proof that Duke's President and Duke's Law School Dean ever read your letters. You then admitted you could not show any evidence.

Do you really believe you have any comprehension of ythe Law?; January 9, 2017 at 5:46 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "VP Schoenfeld made it explicitly clear to you how you had violated Duke's non solicitation policy"........................ No other University in a free society would throw someone off Campus for handing out cards with an invitation to visit a web-site. Universities have no-solicitation policies to protect naïve students from predatory marketing. Get real, this was a lame excuse for their disgraceful conduct and attempt to censor free speech. Shame on Duke.; January 9, 2017 at 9:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Wah wah wah ... still doing nothing productive.; January 9, 2017 at 9:23 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

Nobody in their right mind would want someone like Sid, attending one of their events, decked out in a "Justice for Nifong" shirt, trying to solicit support for an unjust, meritless cause. Nobody would want someone attending an event at their facility featuring a US Supreme Court Justice to question the Justice about their personal cause. This is particularly true of Duke, which was Ground Zero for the tumultuous events initiated by Mangum and Nifong. Sid's presence at that event, his attempt to question a sitting US Supreme Court Justice about Nifong and handing out cards in support of his organization was simply inappropriate and in bad taste. At worst it was inflammatory and offensive. In either event, Duke had every right to require him to leave.

In short, Sid is a crank, rabble rouser and attention seeker who no one takes seriously. Nobody should be forced to endure his presence and interference at a private event on private property. If he wanted to attend the event and listen to the presentation, no one would care - even if he wore a "Justice for Nifong" shirt. However, to engage in his antics at an event where a sitting Supreme Court Justice was invited to give a talk is beyond the pale and merited his exclusion from the premises.

Sid will never understand why what he did was distasteful and wrong and he will never adjust his behavior to comport with the norms of society. Therefore, the only remedy Duke, or anyone else who has to deal with Sid, has is to require him to leave.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 9, 2017 at 10:13 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " No other University in a free society would throw someone off Campus for handing out cards with an invitation to visit a web-site. Universities have no-solicitation policies to protect naïve students from predatory marketing. Get real, this was a lame excuse for their disgraceful conduct and attempt to censor free speech. Shame on Duke."

Without question, Duke is shameful, though not for the reason you state. However, no one in the United States has any free speech rights with regard a private university. The right to freedom of speech is with regard to government action, not private action. As long as Duke did not resort to the courts to deny Sid's speech, they were within the bounds of the law.

Walt-in-Durham; January 9, 2017 at 10:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal's latest screed is just a legally meaningless tantrum. Duke University is the entity which sets up its non solicitation policy and decides what is or is not a violation of its non solicitation policy. That Sidney Harr feels disrespected because he has no authority to decide whether or not he violated Duke's policy has no legal weight whatsoever.

Kenhyderal's screed is but another manifestation of his incredible stupidity. But hey, he knows how to tide o a turnip truck and that should negate his stupidity.; January 9, 2017 at 11:54 AM
Desconocido said...: Kenhyderal,
No se si te llego la informacion que el gordo Kilgo te iba a mandar? Es que es muy dificil comunicarme con el desde que ese tipo sconnosciuto lo encerro.; January 9, 2017 at 12:53 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Desconocido: jVete al diablo; January 9, 2017 at 1:17 PM
kenhyderal said...: Abe said: "Nobody should be forced to endure his presence and interference at a private event on private property"....................There was no interference by Dr. Harr. He is the one who had to endure interference.; January 9, 2017 at 1:23 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny -- Just for giggles, I looked up the solicitation policy at my Alma mater. It states:

"Except by written approval, solicitation, sale of goods, and or distribution of items or materials on campus or in residence halls is prohibited.[bolding mine] Approval for solicitation, distribution, or sale of goods by students, student groups, and non-students must be obtained through the Director of the Office of Student Leadership Development. Non-students who violate this policy are subject to legal prosecution...."

It's safe to say that Sid would have been just as guilty of solicitation here [hint: Williamsburg, VA], as he was at Duke....; January 9, 2017 at 1:31 PM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: " As long as Duke did not resort to the courts to deny Sid's speech, they were within the bounds of the law".................. Legal yes but such an attempt to censor Dr. Harr threatens to undermine the very purpose of a university; a forum in which to test and contest ideas. "Je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerais ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire” Voltaire; January 9, 2017 at 1:36 PM
Desconocido said...: Pero Kenhyderal,
Por que me insultas asi? Solo quiero ayudarte.; January 9, 2017 at 1:37 PM
kenhyderal said...: Fake KH said, in quoting his Alma Mater' anti-solicitation policy : "distribution of items or materials on campus"............................ Get real. This is directed at the handing out of free product samples to students not to business cards.; January 9, 2017 at 1:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Walt said: " As long as Duke did not resort to the courts to deny Sid's speech, they were within the bounds of the law".................. Legal yes but such an attempt to censor Dr. Harr threatens to undermine the very purpose of a university; a forum in which to test and contest ideas. "Je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerais ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire” Voltaire".

So?

Sidney Harr sure does not believe AG Cooper had any right to express his opinion that the Lacrosse players were innocent by virtue of the FACT that the crime of which they were accused never happened.

More Harrian Hypocrisy.; January 9, 2017 at 1:49 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Get real yourself, Kenny.

If I show up on campus wearing my company t-shirt and start handing out my company business cards, I will (at a minimum) be asked to leave.; January 9, 2017 at 1:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Fake KH said, in quoting his Alma Mater' anti-solicitation policy : "distribution of items or materials on campus"............................ Get real. This is directed at the handing out of free product samples to students not to business cards. "

Get real yourself. Neither you nor Sidney Harr determine what is or is not a violation of Duke University's on campus non solicitation policy. Your babble is totally without significance.; January 9, 2017 at 1:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Walt said: " As long as Duke did not resort to the courts to deny Sid's speech, they were within the bounds of the law".................. Legal yes but such an attempt to censor Dr. Harr threatens to undermine the very purpose of a university; a forum in which to test and contest ideas."

So why do you defend Nifong's attempt to conceal information which showed definitively that the people he had indicted for raping Crystal could not have possibly raped her. Or do you cling to the LIE that Nifong did not have them indicted for and charged with first degree rape.

And this evidence was indeed evidence of rape, why did Nifong conceal the evidence, why did he make NO attempt to identify the men who actully left their DNA on Crystal?

Come on, show us again how incredibly stupid and deluded you are.; January 9, 2017 at 1:59 PM
kenhyderal said...: Loaded questions. Charges are laid, charges are dropped, charges are changed. When Former AG Cooper dropped the charges, the accused were not charged with first degree rape. Former DA Nifong did not "conceal" DNA evidence however you are right he did not attempt to identify the DNA found. The reason he offered for that was he felt he still had sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused for sexual assault and kidnapping.; January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: Desconocido said:,Por que me insultas asi? Solo quiero ayudarte.................................................................. "Eres un impostor; January 9, 2017 at 3:09 PM
kenhyderal said...: Fake KH said: "If I show up on campus wearing my company t-shirt and start handing out my company business cards, I will (at a minimum) be asked to leave"..................I dare say your University has their policy in place to stop business solicitation but not, as it should be, attempting to stop the promotion of unpopular ideas or causes.; January 9, 2017 at 3:16 PM
Anonymous said...: more stupidity from Kenhyderal:

"Loaded questions. Charges are laid, charges are dropped, charges are changed."

Totally meaningless, totally irrelevant statement.

"When Former AG Cooper dropped the charges, the accused were not charged with first degree rape."

Nifong sought and got indictments for first degree rape. That is part of the public record. Nifong then did not have his complaining witness interviewed until 6 months after the crime. When she was finally interviewed she could not recall beinng penetrated, which was entirely different from what she described in the DUMC ER. That should have been a clue to Nifong that she had lied. He should have dismissed all charges at that point and did not.

"Former DA Nifong did not 'conceal' DNA evidence"

The evidence was obtained via a Non Testimonial Order. NC law requires a report of the results be turned over to the subjects in a timely manner. Nifong had the results in April of 2006 before he sought indictments for first degree rape. Nifong turned over not a report of the results but thousands of pages of raw data, which the defense, contrary to Nifong's expectation, deciphered the raw data and found the evidence. Before that no one but Nifong and Brian Meehan were aware of the evidence. Brian Meehan admitted under oath that he and Nifong agreed not to report the DNA evidence.So how does that add up to Nifong not concealing the evidence? It doesn't

"however you are right he did not attempt to identify the DNA found. The reason he offered for that was he felt he still had sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused for sexual assault and kidnapping."

From http://thinkexist.com/quotation/it-doesn-t-mean-nothing-happened-it-just-means/1507878.html, a series of Mike Nifong Duke rape hoax quotes:

“I feel pretty confident that a rape occurred.”

“If the only thing that we ever have in this case is DNA, then we wouldn't have a case.”(he had the Lacrosse players for first degree rape knowing he had no DNA evidence)

“It doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means nothing was left behind.”

and from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E1DF1331F931A25755C0A9609C8B63&pagewanted=all:

"There's no doubt in my mind that she was raped and assaulted at this location",

"DNA samples from the woman and 46 players, which Mr. Nifong had said would identify the suspects, turned up no matches. Other DNA evidence proved inconclusive."

Mike Nifong sought indictments for first degree rape with zero DNA evidence.

The only DNA he had did niot match thr DNA of the men against whom he sought indictments for first degree rape. So let's have an answer instead of dodging and ducking. Why did Nifong, if he believed Crystal had been raped, if he believed DNA would identify the rapists, why did he make no attempt to identify the men who had deposited their DNA?; January 9, 2017 at 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Fake KH said: "If I show up on campus wearing my company t-shirt and start handing out my company business cards, I will (at a minimum) be asked to leave"..................I dare say your University has their policy in place to stop business solicitation but not, as it should be, attempting to stop the promotion of unpopular ideas or causes."

What is the proper procedure for promoting unpopular causes? Asking the University for permission to set up on campus and handing out information? Or entering a function which has no relation to the unpopular cause with the intent of using the gathering to promote your unpopular cause.

And you forget, Sidney's unpopular cause was preaching that innocent men falsely accused of a crime which never happened should have been convicted of and imprisoned for said non existent crime. Free speech does notmean one has the right to disperse false, defamatory information.

AND YOU HAVE PROVIDED ZERO EVIDENCE THAT THE CRIME EVER HAPPENED!!!; January 9, 2017 at 4:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

With regardto your exhibit, Plaintiff's Defense on the Court's Order to show cause:

You again maintain that officials at Duke received letters from you informing Duke of your intention to attend the Breyer event and that they used the information in the letters to set you up for an ambush.

I remind you you did admit in J4N you have no evidence that any authority at Duke ever read your letters.; January 9, 2017 at 7:33 PM
Desconocido said...: Kenhyderal,
No entiendo por que me hablas asi. Tu sabes cuanto te quiero.; January 9, 2017 at 7:34 PM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: No, Kenny, W&M have the policy in place to stop ALL unauthorized solicitation. But you know that.....I am willing to bet your Alma mater has a similar policy in place as well. I am also willing to bet you will either refuse to acknowledge they do, or will refuse to check their policies.; January 9, 2017 at 8:38 PM
kenhyderal said...: I've checked and I can find no policy whatsoever on solicitation (McGill University) See what you can find?; January 9, 2017 at 9:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 36 days until February 14th. You have 356 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 10 days since the end of 2016, 193 days since the end of June 2016, 261 days since April 23, 2016, 300 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,144 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,495 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,336 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 10, 2017 at 4:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny ... wah wah wah ...

Still no explanation from you about why Dr. Harr shouldn't be held to the same rules as everyone else. It baffles me that you rail against people abusing the system to harass folks, and ignore that is exactly what Sid is doing.

His lawsuit is dead on arrival - not because our system is unfair, but because he didn't do basic research.

Wah wah wah ...; January 10, 2017 at 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt said: " As long as Duke did not resort to the courts to deny Sid's speech, they were within the bounds of the law".................. Legal yes but such an attempt to censor Dr. Harr threatens to undermine the very purpose of a university; a forum in which to test and contest ideas. "Je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerais ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire” Voltaire

Wait ... Kenny is admitting that what Duke did was legal ... the fact it may "undermine" their very purpose doesn't give rise to a lawsuit ...

If you are admitting that what Duke did was legal, why do you continue to encourage Dr. Harr to file his frivolous lawsuits? I thought you were just abusing Crystal, clearly you are abusing Dr. Harr too ... you seem to like to find people who have emotional issues that make them trusting and easy to manipulate and use that for your sick pleasure.

Shame on you.; January 10, 2017 at 8:19 AM
Fake Kenhyderal said...: Kenny -- contact McGill's secretariat.; January 10, 2017 at 9:43 AM
kenhyderal said...: Legal, except if it is discriminatory on the basis of his race, a violation of his civil rights or a violation of his first amendment rights and if it is discriminately and unevenly applied. That seems to be the clear case here. If not, then, at very least, it is certainly a moral disgrace. Imagine, a University using it's private status to allow them to immorally discriminate. Shameful.; January 10, 2017 at 9:55 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Legal yes but such an attempt to censor Dr. Harr threatens to undermine the very purpose of a university; a forum in which to test and contest ideas."

Thus, it is not a matter to take up in the courts. Proving Harr's litigation against Duke was both frivolous and vexatious.

Walt-in-Durham; January 10, 2017 at 10:40 AM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Is there no way to get you to stop whining?; January 10, 2017 at 10:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Wah wah wah Kenny.

If it's racially discriminatory it's not legal. Do you even read the crap you post?

You are pathetic.; January 10, 2017 at 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Legal, except if it is discriminatory on the basis of his race, a violation of his civil rights or a violation of his first amendment rights and if it is discriminately and unevenly applied. That seems to be the clear case here. If not, then, at very least, it is certainly a moral disgrace. Imagine, a University using it's private status to allow them to immorally discriminate. Shameful."

Kenhyderal again documents he can not comprehend the truth.; January 10, 2017 at 10:52 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Legal, except if it is discriminatory on the basis of his race, a violation of his civil rights or a violation of his first amendment rights and if it is discriminately and unevenly applied. That seems to be the clear case here. If not, then, at very least, it is certainly a moral disgrace. Imagine, a University using it's private status to allow them to immorally discriminate. Shameful."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT [Manual Buzzer noise] Run him!

The first amendment has no application to Duke and Harr. The first amendment applies to governments stifling free speech. There is no evidence that Duke discriminated based on color. If it had, Sid would have had to file a different lawsuit. Unfortunately, his repetitive filings under Section 1983 squandered the time he had to raise a legitimate case, if he in fact had one.

Of course, no one has ever successfully accused Duke of having morality. Otherwise they would never have treated Reade Seligman, David Evans and Collin Finnerty so shabbily. Duke would have stood up for the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty and demanded the DA treat them fairly. Instead, Duke joined Sid, Nifong and a bunch of Crystal's apologists in demanding a grave injustice. Fortunately, justice did prevail and the liars were defeated.

Walt-in-Durham; January 10, 2017 at 10:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"however you are right [Nifong] did not attempt to identify the DNA found. The reason he offered for that was he felt he still had sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused for sexual assault and kidnapping."

Give a reference, e.g. a URL which proves Nifong did not identify the sourcesof the DNA because he felt he did not need the DNA evidence to "proceed against the accused for sexual assault and kidnapping."

I have given you Nifong's quotes in which he said he would proceed against the accused for RAPE without DNA evidence.

How could he proceed against the accused without DNA evidence. The sexual assault described by Crystal WAS a rape, a gang rape in which multiple males had penetrated her and left material on her person. Crystal did not back off on that description until about 6 months after she alleged she was raped, and it was AFTER tha that Nifong DISMISSED the rape charges. And how do you claim they were not charged with rape when rape charges were dismissed by Nifong after he sought and got indictments for first degree rape.

You obviously fell off your turnip truck a long time ago.; January 10, 2017 at 1:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Post from Sidney Harr:

"
Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Two more questions, Dr. Harr:

1. Did you ask your friend Prof. Coleman to look at your Complaint before you filed it?

2. Are you familiar with Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?"

"Regarding 1.: no, I did not contact James Coleman. No need to drag him into my lawsuit. I would want no retribution against him for helping me."

Sidney tries to duck admitting that Professot Coleman does not consider him a friend and wants nothing to do with him.

"Regarding 2.: no, but I looked it up. Still I do not know how it affects me."

Sidney admits he is stupid.; January 10, 2017 at 6:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 35 days until February 14th. You have 355 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 11 days since the end of 2016, 194 days since the end of June 2016, 262 days since April 23, 2016, 301 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,145 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,496 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,335 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 11, 2017 at 6:16 AM

Saturday, January 7, 2017

Libel lawsuit: Harr v. WRAL-5 and Fix-the-Court

80 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me