justice4nifong: Harr v. WRAL, Fix-the-Court, et al.: Motion for Judicial Recusal

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Harr v. WRAL, Fix-the-Court, et al.: Motion for Judicial Recusal

1,043 comments:

1 – 200 of 1043 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr, you again shw you are a delusional megalomaniac.

I remind you you said your frivolous, non meritorious suits against Duke had nothing to do with the Duke Rape hoax. yet you state in your latest filing in yur latest frivolous, non meritorious law suit that Duke targeted you because of your advocacy for Mike Nifong.

You are totally divorced from reality.; January 11, 2017 at 8:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, your claim you are seeking a "fair hearing" for your csse.

Irrelevant statement.

For you to receive a fair hearing for your case first you need to have a case. In all of your lawsuits you have failed to demonstrate you have a case.

Just like you have failed to demonstrate that Crystal Mangum ever told the truth wheen she claimed she had been taped.; January 11, 2017 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, you talk about your "strong case" against Duke.

The only party to the case which had a strong case was Duke. You were asked to leave Duke because you violated Duke's non solicitation policy.

As a manifestation of your delusional megalomania, you argued that you, not Duke, decided what was a violation of Duke's non solicitation policy.

Sort of like a murderess deciding whether or not she acted in self defense.; January 11, 2017 at 8:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, you refer to the case of UNC Wilmington Professor Mike Adams, you again assume a fact not in vidence, that your case, like Professor Adans' case had merit. It is obvious to a lay person that your case had no merit.

You have referred to yourself as a "lay advocate". You are a delusional megalomaniacal lay advocate.; January 11, 2017 at 8:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, you again refer to Crystal Mangum as the "victim/accuser"in the Duke Rape Case. It has been established beyond any and all doubt that Crystal Mangum was the victimizer/false accuser in the Duke Rape Hoax. You have never provided any evidence that Crystal ever told the truth. Why?

By misrepresenting Crystal as the "victim/accuser in the Dukr rape case, you are osting false and defamatory information about innocent men.

Go ahead and rant and rave about the case file being sealed. That is you admitting you can not prove Crystal ever told the truth.

Now why don't you revert to your alter ego Kenhyderal and publish more nonsense about non existent unidentified party attendees.; January 11, 2017 at 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Some other Meryl Streep quotes you missed in your motion:

"The interesting thing about being a mother is that everyone wants pets, but no one but me cleans the kitty litter."

"Instant gratification is not soon enough."

"Men should look at the world as if something is wrong when their voices predominate. They should feel it."

You could've just thrown them in at random points -- you know, kind of like you did with the quote you happened to include.; January 11, 2017 at 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

You talk about your grasp of matters legal.

Yet you can not grasp the obvious, simple principle, the one who asserts is the one who must prove, You have to make your case. You think you should present your case and have it accepted at face value.

Except in totalitarian countries, the legal system does not work that way, not even in Canada, putported home of your alter ego of Kenhyderal.; January 11, 2017 at 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: As has been noted - there is no jurisdiction for your case in Federal Court - they will not even listen to this Motion - your lawsuit will be dismissed. You can either sue them together in State Court (where I suspect they sever and WRAL stays in State, and Fix the Court goes Federal), or you can file 2 lawsuits.; January 11, 2017 at 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...: At what point does the Court order a mental evaluation for Sid? I am beginning to think he really is seriously mentally ill. That would make the abuser Kenny happy, but for the rest of us, it's just sad.; January 11, 2017 at 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 34 days until February 14th. You have 354 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 12 days since the end of 2016, 195 days since the end of June 2016, 263 days since April 23, 2016, 302 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,146 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,497 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,334 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 12, 2017 at 5:05 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous 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.

First of all, the statements in the May 10, 2010 Schoenfeld letter about solicitation were false... that was the best excuse he could come up with at the time. The point is that if the solicitation excuse had any validity, it would have been used in its defense at the pretrial briefs. Solicitation was never mentioned by the defendants as a defense!; January 12, 2017 at 5:21 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: " Solicitation was never mentioned by the defendants as a defense!"

That's because you never plead a claim upon which relief could be granted, let alone one which needed to be defended against.

Speaking of your incredible grasp of the law, your motion to recuse is just another manifestation of your lack of grasp. Just because a judge correctly ruled against you in a prior case is not grounds to recuse. This has been previously explained to you. Yet again, you have failed to learn.

Walt-in-Durham; January 12, 2017 at 5:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"First of all, the statements in the May 10, 2010 Schoenfeld letter about solicitation were false... that was the best excuse he could come up with at the time. The point is that if the solicitation excuse had any validity, it would have been used in its defense at the pretrial briefs. Solicitation was never mentioned by the defendants as a defense!"

Sidney Harr now demonstrates he can not comprehend the truth.

Also,another iteration of Sidney believing he, not Duke, determines what is or is not a violation of Duke's non solicitation policy.

He also seems to believe that he, as plaintiff, decides how the defendant should defend.

Finally, Sidney does not offer any evidence that the President of Duke or the Dean of Duke's Law School ever read his letters. At one time Sidney did admit on J4N that he had no proof. But in his latest filing he claims that his letters made those officials aware of when he was going to be on Duke , and then they conspired against him.

Sidney, for your enlightenment, What else could it have been, is evidence of nothing. It is also an admission you can't make your case.; January 12, 2017 at 6:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

The letter you received from VP Schoenfeld mentioned a letter you sent to Pamela Bernard, Duke Vice President and General Counsel, dated April 19, 2010, a letter which you, for some reason or other, you did not reproduce in your list of exhibits in your previous blog regarding your frivolous, non meritorious suit againsy WRAL and Fix the Court. Why? There is reproduced a "proposal" dated April 14, 2010, listing terms with which you expected Duke to comply.

VP Schoenfeld's reply to you, dated May 10, 2010, explained to you very clearly you had violated Duke's non solicitation policy and that is why you were directed to leave Duke's campus. You HAVE NOT demonstrated that was not the case. I listened to the audio recording you made. You did initiate a conflict with the security guard. Profesor Coleman did not intervene for you. You tried to drag him into the conflict.

I notice in your list of terms from your April 14 screed that you claimed you were targeted for discrimination because of your support for Mike Nifong. That is an admission that your case was about the 2006 Duke Rape allegation incident.

I again remind you, your claim of discrimination are based on allegations, that you sent letters to the President of Duke and to the Dean of the Law School saying you intended to attend the Bryer event, that the President and Dean of the Law Schoolwere aware of your plans to attend and then conspired to discriminate against you, again, because of your advocacy for Mike Nifong. I again remind you, you have nrvrt provided any evidence that the President of Duke or the Law School Dean ever read those letters.

Do you ever pay attention to what you have said and put into the public record? I think not.; January 12, 2017 at 7:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

Let's cut to the chase.

You have claimed recently that your lawsuits against Duke were not connected to the alleged rape of Crystal Mangum in March 0f 2006.

Yet in the documents you have put on line in the past couple of weeks you state more than once that Duke officials conspired to discriminate against you because of your advocacy for Mike Nifong who intended to prosecute members of the Lacrosse team for rape(Kenhyderal take note, Nifong intended to prosecute the accused for 1st degree rape).; January 12, 2017 at 7:30 AM
A Lawyer said...: Dr. Harr:
You know (because Walt and I told you, and because the courts in your prior case ruled), that a judge can be disqualified only because of out-of-court bias, not because the judge handled prior cases of yours or because of of judicial rulings in those cases. Yet you persist in making motions you know are meritless.

Why is that?; January 12, 2017 at 8:27 AM
guiowen said...: By the way, Sidney,
Who's the good-looking blonde?; January 12, 2017 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 33 days until February 14th. You have 353 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 13 days since the end of 2016, 196 days since the end of June 2016, 264 days since April 23, 2016, 303 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,147 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,498 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,333 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 13, 2017 at 4:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
As has been noted - there is no jurisdiction for your case in Federal Court - they will not even listen to this Motion - your lawsuit will be dismissed. You can either sue them together in State Court (where I suspect they sever and WRAL stays in State, and Fix the Court goes Federal), or you can file 2 lawsuits.

As is noted in the beginning of the most recent post, I would like to thank you for your legal advice. As irrational and illogical as it seemed to me, the complete diversity seemed to be a really big deal. Ergo, I will continue my suit against Fix-the-Court in Federal Court and re-file my lawsuit against WRAL in State court. Thanks again for the legal enlightenment.; January 13, 2017 at 4:51 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: " Solicitation was never mentioned by the defendants as a defense!"

That's because you never plead a claim upon which relief could be granted, let alone one which needed to be defended against.

Speaking of your incredible grasp of the law, your motion to recuse is just another manifestation of your lack of grasp. Just because a judge correctly ruled against you in a prior case is not grounds to recuse. This has been previously explained to you. Yet again, you have failed to learn.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

First, my contention is that the judge did not correctly rule against me in the prior case. Not only that, but she was judge-shopped in the prior case, just as she was judge-shopped in the current libel case. What the judge needs to take into consideration is the appearance of impartiality. By adjudicating a second time against me in another judge-shopped situation in which standard protocols are not followed, does not present the appearance of a fair and impartial contest.; January 13, 2017 at 4:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Dr. Harr:
You know (because Walt and I told you, and because the courts in your prior case ruled), that a judge can be disqualified only because of out-of-court bias, not because the judge handled prior cases of yours or because of of judicial rulings in those cases. Yet you persist in making motions you know are meritless.

Why is that?

As the great orator and abolitionist Frederick Douglass once said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand."

I am merely making a demand... again.; January 13, 2017 at 4:58 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
By the way, Sidney,
Who's the good-looking blonde?

If I am not mistaken, I believe that you are referring to Kathryn Brown. She's an anchor/reporter for WRAL-5 News. She's the anchor who reported about the libelous broadcast about me. She's a very good and popular newsperson in the Raleigh-Durham area.; January 13, 2017 at 5:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

Let's cut to the chase.

You have claimed recently that your lawsuits against Duke were not connected to the alleged rape of Crystal Mangum in March 0f 2006.

Yet in the documents you have put on line in the past couple of weeks you state more than once that Duke officials conspired to discriminate against you because of your advocacy for Mike Nifong who intended to prosecute members of the Lacrosse team for rape(Kenhyderal take note, Nifong intended to prosecute the accused for 1st degree rape).

Let me try to elucidate you. My libel lawsuit against WRAL is because it stated that my lawsuit against Duke was tied to the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. This is false. There is nothing that happened in the Duke Lacrosse case that is even remotely related to my lawsuit against WRAL. My lawsuit against Duke was tied to the 2010 discrimination incident in which Duke tried to arrest me for being black and a supporter of Mike Nifong. Just because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong does not tie me to the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case.

One of the main reasons that WRAL falsely stated that my lawsuit was tied to the Duke Lacrosse case is because it did not want the public to know about the 2010 malicious discrimination by Duke against me.

Consider yourself elucidated.; January 13, 2017 at 5:09 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

The letter you received from VP Schoenfeld mentioned a letter you sent to Pamela Bernard, Duke Vice President and General Counsel, dated April 19, 2010, a letter which you, for some reason or other, you did not reproduce in your list of exhibits in your previous blog regarding your frivolous, non meritorious suit againsy WRAL and Fix the Court. Why? There is reproduced a "proposal" dated April 14, 2010, listing terms with which you expected Duke to comply.

VP Schoenfeld's reply to you, dated May 10, 2010, explained to you very clearly you had violated Duke's non solicitation policy and that is why you were directed to leave Duke's campus. You HAVE NOT demonstrated that was not the case. I listened to the audio recording you made. You did initiate a conflict with the security guard. Profesor Coleman did not intervene for you. You tried to drag him into the conflict.

I notice in your list of terms from your April 14 screed that you claimed you were targeted for discrimination because of your support for Mike Nifong. That is an admission that your case was about the 2006 Duke Rape allegation incident.

I again remind you, your claim of discrimination are based on allegations, that you sent letters to the President of Duke and to the Dean of the Law School saying you intended to attend the Bryer event, that the President and Dean of the Law Schoolwere aware of your plans to attend and then conspired to discriminate against you, again, because of your advocacy for Mike Nifong. I again remind you, you have nrvrt provided any evidence that the President of Duke or the Law School Dean ever read those letters.

Do you ever pay attention to what you have said and put into the public record? I think not.

There's no surreptitious reason for not posting the April 19th letters... the reason being that I did not feel they would add to the narrative.

As I stated in a previous comment, just because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong does not tie me to the Duke Lacrosse case... no more than it ties me to the Darryl Howard case.

With regard to the 2010 discrimination incident at Duke, the university president and law school dean may or may not have been involved in the nefarious plot to humiliate and have me arrested with full Associated Press coverage. However, the problem with Duke's actions were not limited to the planning of the ambush, but concerned how the president and dean conducted themselves afterwards. They had a responsibility to deescalate the situation instead of allowing Schoenfeld to toss gasoline on the fire with his confrontational and accusatory letter. I made every conceivable good-faith effort to resolve the incident. Duke chose to ignore me. The rest is history.; January 13, 2017 at 5:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"There's no surreptitious reason for not posting the April 19th letters... the reason being that I did not feel they would add to the narrative."

Which probably means they do add something to the narrative unfavorable to you, and like Nifong concealing exculpatory evidence unfavorable to his case, you wanted to conceal it."

"As I stated in a previous comment, just because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong does not tie me to the Duke Lacrosse case... no more than it ties me to the Darryl Howard case."

Well, if not for the Duke Rape Hoax you would never have become a Nifong supporter. You have blogged repeatedly that Nifong was targeted and mistreated because he prosecuted the Lacrosse players for raping Crystal.

"With regard to the 2010 discrimination incident at Duke, the university president and law school dean may or may not have been involved in the nefarious plot to humiliate and have me arrested with full Associated Press coverage. However, the problem with Duke's actions were not limited to the planning of the ambush, but concerned how the president and dean conducted themselves afterwards. They had a responsibility to deescalate the situation instead of allowing Schoenfeld to toss gasoline on the fire with his confrontational and accusatory letter. I made every conceivable good-faith effort to resolve the incident. Duke chose to ignore me. The rest is history."

There was no nefarious plot to target you in the first place.It was explained to you by VP Schoenfeld you were directed toleave because you were violating Duke's non solicitation policy. You do not make the decision whether or not you violate Duke's non solicitation policy.; January 13, 2017 at 6:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"They had a responsibility to deescalate the situation instead of allowing Schoenfeld to toss gasoline on the fire with his confrontational and accusatory letter."

VP Schoenfeld's letter was a ststement of fact, nothing more.

"I made every conceivable good-faith effort to resolve the incident. Duke chose to ignore me. The rest is history".

Here we have the reason why Sidney sued Duke. Delusional megalomaniac Sidney felt disrespected. And he saw it as an opportunity to shake down Duke for a lot of money.; January 13, 2017 at 6:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

'
Let me try to elucidate you. My libel lawsuit against WRAL is because it stated that my lawsuit against Duke was tied to the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. This is false. There is nothing that happened in the Duke Lacrosse case that is even remotely related to my lawsuit against WRAL.

My lawsuit against Duke was tied to the 2010 discrimination incident in which Duke tried to arrest me for being black and a supporter of Mike Nifong."

Again for delusional megalomaniac Sidney, you have blogged repeatedly yhat you were targeted for discrimination by Duke because of your support of Mike Nifong. Had it not been for the Duke Rape Hoax you would never gottenn involved with Nifong.

""Just because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong does not tie me to the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case."

HUH!!!! What was the reason you supported Mike Nifong? You have blogged repeatedly that Nifong was the only DA in NC history who was disbarred. He was disbarred because of his wrongful prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse players.You have blogged repeatedly, have you not, that Nifong behaved as a decent, honorable minister of justice in the case, have you not? And you have blogged repeatedly that Nifong's disbarment over his actions in the Duke Rape Hoax was unfair, have you not?

"One of the main reasons that WRAL falsely stated that my lawsuit was tied to the Duke Lacrosse case is because it did not want the public to know about the 2010 malicious discrimination by Duke against me."

Irrelevant statement. There was no malicious discrimination aagainst you.

"Consider yourself elucidated."

How can a delusional megalomaniac provide elucidation?

And you have documented many times in your own blog that Duke discriminated against you because of your advocacy for Mike Nifong, which you did because you believed he was mistreated as a result of the Duke Rape Hoax. You have made the defense's case for them.

This is what comes up on the search results page when Justice4Nifong is searchrd for om Bing:

"Nifong Supporter I'm a senior citizen who believes that the state of North Carolina has harshly, excessively, and unjustly treated former Durham District Attorney [Mike Nifpng]"

If not for the Duke Rape Hoax, then how, according to you, did "the state of North Carolina...harshly, excessively, and unjustly [treat] former Durham District Attorney [Mike Nifpng]"?; January 13, 2017 at 6:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

'If I am not mistaken, I believe that you are referring to Kathryn Brown. She's an anchor/reporter for WRAL-5 News. She's the anchor who reported about the libelous broadcast about me. She's a very good and popular newsperson in the Raleigh-Durham area."

Irrelevant statement, since there was no libelpus broadcast against you.; January 13, 2017 at 6:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"
As the great orator and abolitionist Frederick Douglass once said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand."

I am merely making a demand... again."

Correction: you are making a frivolous, non meritorious demand again, a demand which amounts to judge shopping.; January 13, 2017 at 6:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, Walt.

First, my contention is that the judge did not correctly rule against me in the prior case. Not only that, but she was judge-shopped in the prior case, just as she was judge-shopped in the current libel case. What the judge needs to take into consideration is the appearance of impartiality. By adjudicating a second time against me in another judge-shopped situation in which standard protocols are not followed, does not present the appearance of a fair and impartial contest."

Sidney Harr's first lawsuit against Duke was dismissed, for valid legal reasons, judging from the authorities who have posted on this blog(note, the legal authorities, NOT Sidney Harr).

So Sidney filed the same suit a second time and a third time.

So exactly who is shopping for a venue which will find for him?; January 13, 2017 at 6:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

On your J4N home page there is a link to what you call The Nifong Manifesto. It links to a number of on line documents which express your ideas, that Mike Nifong had been unfairly treated as a result of his attempt to prosecute three members of the Duke Lacrosse team for taping Crystal.

You have repeatedly stated on your blog that Duke University personnel conspired to discriminate against you because of your advocacy for Mike Nifong.

You have stated repeatedly on your blog that you sued Duke because they conspired to discriminate against you because of your advocacy for Mike Nifong.

If there had been no attempt to prosecute members of the Lacrosse team for rape(and there was zero evidence the alleged rape ever happened, zero evidence Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped-the issue was, NOT whether or not she lied but whether or not she told the truth-the prosecution had the obligation of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Crystal had told the truth), would there have been any need for you to advocate for Mike Nifong?

No there wouldn't have been.

So where do you get that your suit against Duke was not related to the so called Duke Rape Case(it was actually the Duke Rape Hoax).; January 13, 2017 at 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

Establish that your lawsuits against Duke had nothing to do with what you call "The Duke Lacrosse Case".

What you have said is, and I quote: "Just because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong does not tie me to the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case."

You have also said this, "My lawsuit against Duke was tied to the 2010 discrimination incident in which Duke tried to arrest me for being black AND A SUPPORTER OF MIKE NIFONG."

If there had been no Duke Lacrosse case, which led to the disbarment of Mike Nifong, how would you have become a "supporter of Mike Nifong"?

If there had been no Duke Lacrosse Case, Mike Nifong would never have been elected Durham County DA. He never would have been disbarred. Would you then have had to advocate for Justice for Nifong?; January 13, 2017 at 10:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Do you understand how the legal system works? It doesn't matter what YOU think - the Judge ruled, you appealed it, the 4th Circuit agreed with the Judge, you appealed that - the Supreme Court declined to take the case ... ergo the Judge was right in what they did.

Holding your breath and crying like a baby doesn't change that.

Oh, and make sure you understand - you need the Court's permission to dismiss a case in Federal Court - otherwise it's with prejudice and you cannot refile - so you need to ask the Court to let you dismiss WRAL, otherwise they can hit you on the fact you already sued them once on the issue, and dismissed it with prejudice.

You really do need to Google.; January 13, 2017 at 11:04 AM
A Lawyer said...: Oh, and make sure you understand - you need the Court's permission to dismiss a case in Federal Court - otherwise it's with prejudice and you cannot refile - so you need to ask the Court to let you dismiss WRAL, otherwise they can hit you on the fact you already sued them once on the issue, and dismissed it with prejudice.

You really do need to Google.

Not completely accurate. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(B) and 41(b).; January 13, 2017 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, I see those rules - but Sid seems to say that they've already started Judge shopping (we know Sid is a fool), so they've likely already filed something - I was operating on that assumption.

But, we know that no matter what, if Sid doesn't like the outcome, he will just refile it anyway.; January 13, 2017 at 12:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

You have posted multiple statements on J4N indicating that your lawsuits against Duke were connected to the 2006 Duke Lacrosse incident(Crystal Mangum falsely accusing three Lacrosse players of raping her).

What makes you think you can delude people into believing your suits against Duke were not connected to the 2006 Duke Lacrosse incident?; January 13, 2017 at 2:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 32 days until February 14th. You have 352 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 14 days since the end of 2016, 197 days since the end of June 2016, 265 days since April 23, 2016, 304 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,148 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,499 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,332 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 14, 2017 at 10:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

Why do you believe you can deceive people about your frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits against Duke, namely, that your suits are not connected to the Duke Lacrosse incident. There have been posted many references documenting that you claimed Duke officials conspired to discriminate against you because of your advocacy for Mike Nifong, thr rogue prosecutor who tried to convict innocent men, knowing he had no evidence that a crime had happened.; January 14, 2017 at 2:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man kenhyderal?; January 14, 2017 at 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man kenhyderal?; January 15, 2017 at 7:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 31 days until February 14th. You have 351 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 15 days since the end of 2016, 198 days since the end of June 2016, 266 days since April 23, 2016, 305 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,149 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,500 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,331 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 15, 2017 at 8:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man?; January 16, 2017 at 5:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 30 days until February 14th. You have 350 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 16 days since the end of 2016, 199 days since the end of June 2016, 267 days since April 23, 2016, 306 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,150 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,501 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,330 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 16, 2017 at 5:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal's posts on the Lacrosse incident:

The DNA found on Crystal was evidence Crystal was raped.

Kilgo told him someone had told him(kilgo) he had witnessed Crystal being raped.

Ergo,there must have been unidentified party attendees, not membeers of the Lacrosse team.

The Police investigation was botched and shoddy because the men who left their DNA on Crystal were never identified.

Why did Nifong mae no effort to identify the men who had left their DNA? Kenhyderal's attempt at explanation was, Nifong felt he could convict members of the Lacrosse team of sexual assault and kidnapping without DNA evidence.

Before December of 2006, no one but Nifong and Brian Meehan knew of the DNA evidence, that the male DNA found on Crystal post party did not match the DNA of anyone who had been identified as party attendees. It became public knowledge AFTER the defense attorneys confronted Brian Meehan with the evidence-the defense attorneys got a court order to have Nifong turn over the raw data, deciphered it, contrary to Nifong's expectations, and found the evidence.

And Kenhyderal insists Nifong, who got the REPORT of the evidence months before he was compelled to turn over the raw data, and who was obligated by law to turn over a REPORT of the findings in a timely manner, did not conceal the evidence.

Kenhyderal, you ARE incredibly stupid if you think people believe you.; January 16, 2017 at 6:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man?; January 16, 2017 at 9:21 AM
kenhyderal said...: The DNA evidence was turned over in a TIMELY MANNER months before any scheduled trial. There never was a comprehensive list of party attendees. No one, I repeat no one, has ever seen such a list. Such a list does not exist. All players present and non-present, except for Devon Sherwood, were tested. Only two guests who happened to appear in photos were tested. The guests who were there may have even out-numbered Players, or so I've been told. I'm mot so naïve/stupid to believe you and other brain-washed people believe me.; January 16, 2017 at 9:26 AM
guiowen said...: Wow, Kenny! You are so brilliant!; January 16, 2017 at 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...: "The guests who were there may have even out-numbered Players, or so I've been told.

By whom?; January 16, 2017 at 10:46 AM
Anonymous said...: From Kenhyderal:

"The DNA evidence was turned over in a TIMELY MANNER months before any scheduled trial."

Te DNA evidence was the result of a non testimonial order. Nifong was obligated by North Carolina law applicable to non testimonial orders to turn over a REPORT in a timely manner to those subjected to the non testimonial order. He had the report of the DNA evidence BEFORE any one was indicted. Nifong turned over raw data, NOT a REPORT months AFTER the tree Lacrosse players were indicted. That IS NOT in compliance with the North Carolina law which applies to a non testimonial order.

"There never was a comprehensive list of party attendees. No one, I repeat no one, has ever seen such a list. Such a list does not exist. All players present and non-present, except for Devon Sherwood, were tested. Only two guests who happened to appear in photos were tested."

There never was any evidence that there were any unidentified party attendees who were not members of the Lacrosse team. You have never presented any.

"The guests who were there may have even out-numbered Players, or so I've been told."

Your claim is, that this entity, kilgo, told you that a Lacrosse team member told him he had witnessed non lacrosse player attendees raping Crystal. You claimed that kilgo told you this in a post he put on J4N. Then you said, kilgo disappeared from J4N and deleted all his posts, including his post about unidentified rapists, meaning you can not document kilgo ever told you any such thing, which in turn strongly suggests you fabricated the story.

"I'm mot so naïve/stupid to believe you and other brain-washed people believe me."

You are naive and stupid and self brainwashed if you believe you have made a case for unidentified party attendees raping Crystal.

And if you do believe Crystal was raped at the party by unidentified party attendees, then explain why Nifong made no attempt to identify the males who left their DNA on Crystal. Nifong could not have convicted anyone without DNA evidence. The crime Crystal described shortly post party, the sexual assault she described shortly post party, was a gang rape in which multiple males left evidence on her person.

So thank you for living down to my expectations again and showing again you are incredibly stupid, and showing again you can not comprehend the truth..; January 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

http://law.justia.com/codes/north-carolina/2005/chapter_15a/article_14.html

"§ 15A‑282.� Copy of results to person involved.

A person who has been the subject of nontestimonial identification procedures or his attorney must be provided with a copy of any REPORTS(emphasis added) of test results as soon as the reports are available. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1.)"

Nifong had the results before any one was indicted. He was ordered by the court to make the raw data available to the defendants MONTHS after he had the results.

Nifong concealed the evidence, not because he believed he could convict anyone without the results, but because he knew the results would exonerate the innocent men he wanted to convict.; January 16, 2017 at 11:21 AM
Inconnu said...: Kenhyderal,
Que veux tu qu'on fasse de ton ami le Gros Kilgo? Ce type sconnosciuto l'a renferme' dans un petit apartement et ne nous laisse pas le voire.; January 16, 2017 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Let's get this straight, Kenny -- you believe that The guests who were at the LAX party out-numbered the players, because an anonymous poster said so on this message board?; January 16, 2017 at 11:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Welcome back, little man.; January 16, 2017 at 1:05 PM
The Rectumfinder said...: There were two non--Lacrosse team guests at the party-- Kenhyderal and Sidney Harr. They were both wearing whiteface and they raped Crystal so they could frame the Lacrosse team.; January 16, 2017 at 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 29 days until February 14th. You have 349 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 17 days since the end of 2016, 200 days since the end of June 2016, 268 days since April 23, 2016, 307 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,151 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,502 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,329 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 17, 2017 at 5:57 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 11:21 AM wrote: ""§ 15A‑282.� Copy of results to person involved.

A person who has been the subject of nontestimonial identification procedures or his attorney must be provided with a copy of any REPORTS(emphasis added) of test results as soon as the reports are available. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1.)"

Nifong had the results before any one was indicted. He was ordered by the court to make the raw data available to the defendants MONTHS after he had the results.

Nifong concealed the evidence, not because he believed he could convict anyone without the results, but because he knew the results would exonerate the innocent men he wanted to convict."

Ding - Ding - Ding! Ladies And Gentlemen, We Have A Winner!

To add more to Nifong's unethical conduct, he lied to a Superior Court Judge about having the evidence. A lie made even worse, because he knew he had the evidence as he was the one who got the in person report from Dr. Meehan.

Walt-in-Durham; January 17, 2017 at 7:19 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "A lie made even worse, because he knew he had the evidence"................ A lie made worse because he knew? What, Walt, were the exact words DA Nifong said to Judge Smith that he knew were untrue? Are you saying he committed perjury?; January 17, 2017 at 9:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Yes, Kenny, he did - that's why the Judge held him in contempt and sentenced him to a day in jail as punishment.; January 17, 2017 at 11:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Walt said: "A lie made even worse, because he knew he had the evidence"................ A lie made worse because he knew? What, Walt, were the exact words DA Nifong said to Judge Smith that he knew were untrue? Are you saying he committed perjury? "

As I recall, Nifng was specifically asked if he had turned over all the evidence he had to the drfendants. Nifong said yes. Nifong did not turn over the evidence, that the male DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the tree defendants.

I remind you yet again that the "sexual sssult" escribed by Crystal when she was in the DUMC ER was a gang rape in which multiple males who had deposited their body fluids on her. I say again, there was no way Nifong could have convicted any one of that "sexual assault" without DNA evidence.; January 17, 2017 at 11:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

AgainI say explain this:

You maintain the Male DNA found on Crystal post party came from rapists, people who attended the party but were never identified.

Explain why Mike Nifong made no attempt to identify the males who had left their DNA on Crystal.

While you are at it explain why Nifong sought and got indictments for first degree rape against three men whose DNA did not match the DNA found on Crystal.

I remind you again, the sexual assault alleged by Crystal was described as a gang rape in which multiple males deposited their DNA. Nifong could not have convicted anyone of anything without DNA evidence.; January 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM
The Great Kilgo said...: Kenhyderal, wonderful news! I managed to escape, and have all the ojbbzxidgudsc; January 17, 2017 at 12:07 PM
Anonymous said...: This site and the posts from Sid and Kenny were getting REALLY stale -- like, the same arguments from 2010 stale.

So just for giggles I started going through the old posts looking for similarities, and found quite a surprise.

Anybody interested in hearing it?; January 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney finally makes the news! At 1:10 in the video:

http://www.twcnews.com/nc/triangle-sandhills/news/2017/01/16/flying-car-prototype-could-hit-the-skies-later-this-year.html

And not wearing a J4N hat to boot. Just a casino hat from Vegas:

https://theresortatsummerlin.com/; January 17, 2017 at 12:56 PM
guiowen said...: Hey, Sidney, you look great! Congratulations!; January 17, 2017 at 2:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Some years ago Sidney and his J4N gang marched in the MLK day paradein Raleigh. In his blog Sidney complained that his gang received no press coverage until the end of yhe parade when a tv station, I believe it was the ABC station, gave them a little bit.

I went to the TV station's web site an saw a clip of their coverage, an interview at the end of the parade. The Station did not really give Sidney and his gang any coverage. While the interview was going on, Sidney and his gang tried, Victoria Peterson style, to barge their way on camera.; January 18, 2017 at 3:35 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Are you saying he committed perjury?"

In as much as Nifong was not under oath, he could not commit perjury. Of course, you know that. What he did do was violate Rule 3.3 or the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. That rule requires lawyers to be candid with the court. In the May discovery dispute hearing Nifong was asked if he had handed over all the DNA evidence to the defense. He said he had. Then some months later, her handed over thousands of pages of DNA evidence which included evidence he had received at his early May meeting with Dr. Meehan. Anyone familiar with the case timeline knows that. Anyone who paid attention knows that the Disciplinary Hearing Commission revoked Nifong's law license for numerous professional conduct violations. Anyone who is familiar with the case facts knows that Nifong was later found in contempt for this particular Rule 3.3 violation and jailed. Only someone who is willfully ignoring the facts would feign ignorance.; January 18, 2017 at 4:46 AM
Anonymous said...: If you are scoring at home (or even if you are all alone):

There are 28 days until February 14th. Sid has 348 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 18 days since the end of 2016, 201 days since the end of June 2016, 269 days since April 23, 2016, 308 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,152 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,503 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,328 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 18, 2017 at 8:41 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Walt: Here is DA Nifong's testimony "I now understand that some things that I thought were in the report were, in fact, not in the report. So the statements were not factually true to the extent that I said all the information had been provided." This mistake, without malice, earned him the one the day in gaol. The "numerous professional conduct "violations", related to zealous, albeit careless, things he had said publically about the case. Revoking his licence for this behaviour was done so selectively and vindictively that no other Prosecutor ever suffered the same fate; January 18, 2017 at 10:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Wah wah wah ...

That dead horse has been beaten to death Kenny ... you really have nothing to say anymore do you? You are worse than a broken record. Just because you repeat the same drivel over and over doesn't make you right. It's like Sid and his lawsuits - just cause he keeps refiling them doesn't mean they have merit.; January 18, 2017 at 10:54 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Nifong's statement was contradicted by Meehan. You know that very well.; January 18, 2017 at 10:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Over the last two days, Mike Nifong disgraced not only himself but the Durham attorneys who, supposedly, represent the “people.”

Nifong’s disgrace was obvious.

Four times on the stand he referred to Crystal Mangum as the “victim.” He made it clear that—unequivocal apologies notwithstanding—he still believes her story/stories, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

How, his attorney asked, could he explain the lack of DNA evidence from the SBI? “It was evident to me that this had been a non-ejaculatory event.” There would have been DNA, he suggested later, “had there been ejaculation and had there not been something to prevent the ejaculate from getting on Ms. Mangum.” His implication? An attack actually occurred, with condoms or objects? (I guess he didn’t believe Mangum on these points.)

With benefit of hindsight, would he concede that Dr. Meehan’s finding of DNA from multiple unidentified males on Mangum’s rape kit be considered exculpatory? Astonishingly, Nifong continued to say no—and repeated his denial over and over again during cross-examination.

The same person who absurdly rationalized a case where the “victim” described at least one and (depending on the version) multiple ejaculations as “a non-ejaculatory event” dismissed the rape kit DNA. The N&O’s Joe Neff and Anne Blythe tartly summarized:

Nifong also offered a unique theory about whose DNA it could have been.

"It could have come from anybody," Nifong said. "She had a son, a very young son."; January 18, 2017 at 12:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Beyond a person unethical to the core, the proceedings revealed a former prosecutor who was almost unbelievably lazy. He justified his open-file discovery policy on the grounds that it was more efficient in obtaining guilty pleas, and spared him the trouble of reading reports. Indeed, based on the insinuations in his testimony, he regularly brought indictments without reading the basic documents or reports upon which those indictments were based. And when did he read the documents? Perhaps never, if the defendant entered a plea. Otherwise, on the eve of trial.

How convenient, then: under the theory of justice Nifong outlined yesterday, a prosecutor could lie to the court at will. Since prosecutors don’t have to read any of the documents in their files, they can simply guess on what those documents contain. Since they don’t know what is in the documents, they can’t knowingly lie. As he told the court yesterday, he considers his 9-22 statement that he and Dr. Meehan never discussed the facts of the case beyond what was contained in Meehan’s report to be “basically true.” Why? Because “I’m not even sure that I even thought of the unidentified DNA as a ‘fact of this case.’”; January 18, 2017 at 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ Walt: Here is DA Nifong's testimony "I now understand that some things that I thought were in the report were, in fact, not in the report. So the statements were not factually true to the extent that I said all the information had been provided." This mistake, without malice, earned him the one the day in gaol. The "numerous professional conduct "violations", related to zealous, albeit careless, things he had said publically about the case. Revoking his licence for this behaviour was done so selectively and vindictively that no other Prosecutor ever suffered the same fate"

As as been explained to you, NC law regarding the results of a non testimonial order must be turned over to the subjects of the NTO as soon as the person who requested the NTO had them. As the Durham DA office requested the NTO, and Nifong was the Durham DA, and as he took over the case, he was required to turn over the results to those he had indicted as soon as he had them. He had the results before he sought indictments. When ordered by the court he turned over thousands of pages of raw data months after he had the results.

No matter how you delude yourself, Nifong concealed evidence.

So far as his testimony, "I now understand that some things that I thought were in the report were, in fact, not in the report", that sounds like a self serving lie. If he is claiming he did not know the reports were not in what he turned over, he was negligent.; January 18, 2017 at 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 1:25PM stated: "As as been explained to you, NC law regarding the results of a non testimonial order must be turned over to the subjects of the NTO as soon as the person who requested the NTO had them. As the Durham DA office requested the NTO, and Nifong was the Durham DA, and as he took over the case, he was required to turn over the results to those he had indicted as soon as he had them. He had the results before he sought indictments. When ordered by the court he turned over thousands of pages of raw data months after he had the results."

That is not quite correct. NC law regarding the result of an NTO requires the results to be turned over to ALL of the SUBJECTS of the NTO, not just those indicted. Nifong failed to turn over the results to the unindicted subjects of the NTO and had failed to do so even when he recused himself from the case.

Nifong failed to comply with NC law regarding NTOs. Kennyhyderal is a liar.; January 18, 2017 at 1:47 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Guiowen 10:59 ; Mehan's testimony: "The omissions were a misunderstanding. Nifong asked us to test DNA samples from lacrosse players to see whether any matched genetic material found on the woman who told police she was raped.
Although male DNA was found, no sample matched a lacrosse player. Results from the other unidentified men was referenced as "non-probative" material in the report given to defense attorneys. "My company and the company's assessment of that document request was that clearly there was a misunderstanding, that whoever went through that document we provided, that there were some things that they didn't understand completely, that clearly they got wrong,"
Charles Davis (the attorney appointed to prosecute the contempt charge) asked Meehan whether Nifong's statement to the court — that the report encompassed everything he had discussed with Meehan — was true or false.
Mehan replied: "It would be false because we don't include discussions in our reports,".
Meehan said in earlier testimony "I was the one who decided how to prepare the report. No lacrosse player had been linked to the accuser" Question to Nifong: "Did Nifong ask you to leave anything out of the report?" Answer: "No."; January 18, 2017 at 3:20 PM
Anonymous said...: New York Times

DNA Witness Jolted Dynamic of Duke Case
By DAVID BARSTOW and DUFF WILSON DEC. 24, 2006

DURHAM, N.C., Dec. 23 — The moment that may have changed the course of the Duke lacrosse rape case came in a packed courtroom two Fridays ago.

On the stand at a pretrial hearing was Brian W. Meehan, director of a private laboratory that performed extensive DNA testing on rape kit swabs and underwear collected from a stripper only hours after she said that she had been gang-raped by three Duke lacrosse players after performing at a team party in March. Mr. Meehan’s tests on the swabs and underwear had detected traces of sperm and other DNA material from several men.

But his tests had found something else, too: none of that DNA material was from the three players, or any of their teammates.

Mr. Meehan had promptly shared this information with Michael B. Nifong, the Durham district attorney. Yet his summary report — the one that would be turned over to the defense — mentioned none of this.

It was an awkward omission that Mr. Meehan struggled to explain under withering cross-examination from defense lawyers. At one point, he was forced to admit that the incomplete report violated his laboratory’s own protocols.

Finally, a defense lawyer asked Mr. Meehan if the decision not to report complete test results was “an intentional limitation” arrived at between him and Mr. Nifong.

“Yes,” Mr. Meehan replied.; January 18, 2017 at 3:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ Guiowen 10:59 ; Mehan's testimony: "The omissions were a misunderstanding. Nifong asked us to test DNA samples from lacrosse players to see whether any matched genetic material found on the woman who told police she was raped.
Although male DNA was found, no sample matched a lacrosse player. Results from the other unidentified men was referenced as "non-probative" material in the report given to defense attorneys. "My company and the company's assessment of that document request was that clearly there was a misunderstanding, that whoever went through that document we provided, that there were some things that they didn't understand completely, that clearly they got wrong,"
Charles Davis (the attorney appointed to prosecute the contempt charge) asked Meehan whether Nifong's statement to the court — that the report encompassed everything he had discussed with Meehan — was true or false.
Mehan replied: "It would be false because we don't include discussions in our reports,".
Meehan said in earlier testimony "I was the one who decided how to prepare the report. No lacrosse player had been linked to the accuser" Question to Nifong: "Did Nifong ask you to leave anything out of the report?" Answer: 'No.'"

Refer to the comment of January 18, 2017 at 3:42 PM.

Kenhyderal again documents he can not comprehend the truth.; January 18, 2017 at 4:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Finally, a defense lawyer asked Mr. Meehan if the decision not to report complete test results was “an intentional limitation” arrived at between him and Mr. Nifong.

“Yes,” Mr. Meehan replied.; January 18, 2017 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Beyond a person unethical to the core, the proceedings revealed a former prosecutor who was almost unbelievably lazy... under the theory of justice Nifong outlined yesterday, a prosecutor could lie to the court at will. Since prosecutors don’t have to read any of the documents in their files, they can simply guess on what those documents contain. Since they don’t know what is in the documents, they can’t knowingly lie.; January 18, 2017 at 5:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Indeed, based on the insinuations in his testimony, he regularly brought indictments without reading the basic documents or reports upon which those indictments were based. And when did he read the documents? Perhaps never, if the defendant entered a plea. Otherwise, on the eve of trial.; January 18, 2017 at 5:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

An oldy but a goodie:

You are on record that Crystal was raped at the party, that the DNA found on Crystal came from rapists at the party who were not identified as being at the party, that the police investigation was botched and inadequate because the men who left their DNA on Crystal were never identified.

Nifong did conceal the DNA evidence. Besides that, he had custody of the evidence, he had the capability of at least trying to identify who that DNA belonged to, and he made zero effort to do that. Explain why.

Your stock answer is, Nifong believed he could convict members of the Lacrosse team of sexual assault and kidnapping without DNA evidence. Again I remind you, the "sexual assault" alleged by Crystal was a gang rape in which multiple men left their DNA on Crystal. Nifong could not have convicted any one of anything without DNA evidence.

The scenario you have thus far spectacularly failed to address is, Nifong ignored the men who had left their DNA on Crystal and tried to prosecute three men who had not.; January 18, 2017 at 5:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/04/prosecuting_the_prosecutor.html

Some things you missed on a post you put up earlier:

What you put up:

"In deciding whether or not a defendant is entitled to a dismissal or other remedy, many courts have found no violation of federal constitutional rights when the material was produced at trial, on the theory that the defendant was not ultimately prejudiced by the timing of the disclosure."

What the article also said:

"North Carolina's discovery law, however, clearly required the results to be included in a report prepared last April, not handed over months later." I remind you Nifong had the report before he ever sought indictments. He turned over months after the indictments were handed down, thousands of pages of raw data, not a report.

And:

"These court decisions, however, do not rule out criminal liability for a prosecutor who deliberately tries to withhold evidence that ends up eventually getting produced anyway. The "no harm, no foul" defense doesn't fly here. Obstructing justice does not require that you suppress evidence, only that you try. Federal civil rights law is similar. This should mean that in the Duke lacrosse case, the defense's ultimate success in getting the raw data of the DNA tests would not save Nifong."; January 18, 2017 at 6:29 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney finally makes the news! At 1:10 in the video:

http://www.twcnews.com/nc/triangle-sandhills/news/2017/01/16/flying-car-prototype-could-hit-the-skies-later-this-year.html

And not wearing a J4N hat to boot. Just a casino hat from Vegas:

https://theresortatsummerlin.com/

Hey, Whoever you are, thanks for putting up the URL address for the interview. I hadn't seen it as I don't have cable.

Several years ago during a Moral Monday march, a cameraman from PBS wanted me to interview me about the demonstration against McCrory. I didn't really feel as prepared as I would've liked, so I declined. However, afterwards I felt badly about not consenting. From that point on, I decided I would not refuse a request for an interview... regardless of how stupid I might appear.

I don't usually wear my j4n tee-shirt, and so I did not have it on when I was walking down the sidewalk and the nice gentleman from Time-Warner Cable asked if I would give my thoughts about a flying cab in the future. So I agreed. You can bet that had I known that I would be on television I would have been proudly wearing my j4n tee-shirt.

The cap is from a Rampart Casino in Las Vegas... I got it "free" for earning so many points playing on their slot machines. (I probably spent about $20.00 to earn enough points for the cap.)

Anyway, thanks for posting the URL address of the interview.; January 18, 2017 at 7:12 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Hey, Sidney, you look great! Congratulations!

Hey, gui, mon ami.

Thanks for the kind words. I didn't see the clip yet... oft times I forego because I pretty much know what I said. Since its not related to Crystal or North Carolina justice I may not view it.

Am busy getting ready to file the libel lawsuit against WRAL in State Court. Will do that tomorrow, the 19th.; January 18, 2017 at 7:17 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Some years ago Sidney and his J4N gang marched in the MLK day paradein Raleigh. In his blog Sidney complained that his gang received no press coverage until the end of yhe parade when a tv station, I believe it was the ABC station, gave them a little bit.

I went to the TV station's web site an saw a clip of their coverage, an interview at the end of the parade. The Station did not really give Sidney and his gang any coverage. While the interview was going on, Sidney and his gang tried, Victoria Peterson style, to barge their way on camera.

Hah. Yeah, I remember that. I noticed the camera facing sorta in our direction during an interview, so I hurriedly tried to position the banner I was carrying with another member in the background. Unfortunately, he was a little reluctant to cooperate with my strategy so the Justice for Nifong banner did not get as much air time as it could have. However, I would hardly call positioning oneself in the background the same as barging in onto camera.; January 18, 2017 at 7:22 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

Why do you believe you can deceive people about your frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits against Duke, namely, that your suits are not connected to the Duke Lacrosse incident. There have been posted many references documenting that you claimed Duke officials conspired to discriminate against you because of your advocacy for Mike Nifong, thr rogue prosecutor who tried to convict innocent men, knowing he had no evidence that a crime had happened.

Clearly, my lawsuit is about the treatment I received by Duke University in April 2010... more than four years after the Duke Lacrosse incident. Specifically, my lawsuit is about its discrimination and attempt to arrest me for being a Nifong supporter and being black.

You have yet to explain how my 2011 discrimination lawsuit against Duke University is tied to the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. Focus and pay attention: there is no nexus between the Duke Lacrosse case and the Duke University discrimination. Just like there is no nexus between the Darryl Howard case and the Duke University discrimination against me.; January 18, 2017 at 7:33 PM
A Lawyer said...: You have yet to explain how my 2011 discrimination lawsuit against Duke University is tied to the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case.

Paragraph 1 of your original Complaint in your 2011 lawsuit includes these words: "Plaintiff's opinion was that NIFONG was being singularly and excessively mistreated because of his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case..." (I am taking the quote right off your own blog:
http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/harrvduke.html )

Your 2011 lawsuit is "tied to the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case" because you chose to mention "the Duke Lacrosse case" in the very first paragraph of your own Complaint. By mentioning the "Duke Lacrosse case" in your Complaint, you made a judicial admission that the Duke Lacrosse case had something to do with your 2011 lawsuit.

Truth is an absolute defense to libel.; January 18, 2017 at 8:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous in quoting a report of a question and answer by Dr. Meehan in DA Nifong's hearing wrote: "Finally, a defense lawyer asked Mr. Meehan if the decision not to report complete test results was “an intentional limitation” arrived at between him and Mr. Nifong. “Yes,” Mr. Meehan replied.............. You've taken this completely out of context. This is not an example of Dr. Meehan and DA Nifong conspiring to purposely withhold exculpatory evidence from the Lacrosse Defence but whether to hand over the entire file along with evidence of a non-exculpatory nature concerning those charged; ie ( information that non-player DNA was found). The report contained the relevant information that no DNA was found belonging to their clients or for any other Players. This information was characterized as "non-probative". Dr. Meehan said, "discussions with prosecutors about the findings are usually not reported". This was the de facto intentional limitation.; January 18, 2017 at 9:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Kennyhyderal is a liar.

At the time the report was delivered in May, Nifong had no intention of handing over to the defense all of the underlying data. When the defense filed a motion requesting the data, Nifong fought the request in court, citing the undue cost of complying with the request. Only after the court rejected his arguments and ordered that the prosecution provide the information did Nifong deliver the data (although he failed to comply with the court mandate deadline, missing the deadline by a week).; January 18, 2017 at 11:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Kennyhyderal is a liar.

Kennyhyderal cites the unidentified male DNA found in and on Mangum as evidence she was raped by mystery rapists at the lacrosse party. Kennyhyderal now describes this male DNA as "evidence of a non-exculpatory nature" in his feeble attempt to justify an incomplete report that violated industry standards and the company's own protocols.

Both cannot possibly be true.

Kennyhyderal is a liar.; January 19, 2017 at 12:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Some years ago Sidney and his J4N gang marched in the MLK day paradein Raleigh. In his blog Sidney complained that his gang received no press coverage until the end of yhe parade when a tv station, I believe it was the ABC station, gave them a little bit.

I went to the TV station's web site an saw a clip of their coverage, an interview at the end of the parade. The Station did not really give Sidney and his gang any coverage. While the interview was going on, Sidney and his gang tried, Victoria Peterson style, to barge their way on camera.

Hah. Yeah, I remember that. I noticed the camera facing sorta in our direction during an interview, so I hurriedly tried to position the banner I was carrying with another member in the background. Unfortunately, he was a little reluctant to cooperate with my strategy so the Justice for Nifong banner did not get as much air time as it could have. However, I would hardly call positioning oneself in the background the same as barging in onto camera."

Sidney admirs he tried to force himself into thr picture.

That is not the same as the TV station giving him coverage.; January 19, 2017 at 2:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Clearly, my lawsuit is about the treatment I received by Duke University in April 2010... more than four years after the Duke Lacrosse incident. Specifically, my lawsuit is about its discrimination and attempt to arrest me for being a Nifong supporter and being black."

You have gone on record on your blog many times that Duke targeted you because supported Nifong. You supported Nifong because he prosecutrd the Lacrosse students. Had there been no Lacrosse incident, Nifong would not have become the notorious individual he is and you would not have had anything to advocate for.

Y"ou have yet to explain how my 2011 discrimination lawsuit against Duke University is tied to the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. Focus and pay attention: there is no nexus between the Duke Lacrosse case and the Duke University discrimination. Just like there is no nexus between the Darryl Howard case and the Duke University discrimination against me."

Yu focus and pay attention. You have admitted on your blog on many occasions that your frivolous non-meritorious lawsuits ARE connected to the Duke Lacrosse incident.; January 19, 2017 at 2:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probative:

"Probative

Having the effect of proof, tending to prove, or actually proving."

Kenhyderal quote:

"This is not an example of Dr. Meehan and DA Nifong conspiring to purposely withhold exculpatory evidence from the Lacrosse Defence but whether to hand over the entire file along with evidence of a non-exculpatory nature concerning those charged; ie ( information that non-player DNA was found). The report contained the relevant information that no DNA was found belonging to their clients or for any other Players. This information was characterized as 'NON PROBATIVE(emphasis added).'"

The situation, again, was, Crystal alleged a gang rape in which multiple males deposited their DNA on her person.

When seeking the NTO, which resulted in the DNA evidence, the Durham DA office said the results would identify the perpetrators. The DNA evidence showed that none of the men Nifong had indicted could have been the perpetrators. So explain why the evidence was non-probative.

Who decides whether or not whether evidence is probative, the Court or the Prosecutor? In a criminal case, should the Defense Attorney rule whether or not any Prosecution evidence is probative? Or should the Defense ask the Court to rule on whether or not the evidence is probative?

Finally, I again give Kenhyderal the opportunity to dodge this question, why did Nifong not even try to identify the men who left their DNA on Crystal? It goes back to Probative. If, as you allege, Crystal had been raped, would not the DNA found on her implicate the men who left the DNA? You have admitted it would each and every time you have claimed that the DNA found on Crystal had come from her rapists and the men who left the DNA were never identified because of a shoddt police investigation.

So Nifong and Meehan do not get a pass for concealing evidence because they believed the evidence was non-probative.; January 19, 2017 at 3:33 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: " This mistake, without malice, ...."

Kenny, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts. Nifong's testimony at his contempt trial is not at issue. His candor with the court in May 2006 is. His self-serving subsequent statement in no way excuses his failure to abide by Rule 3.3 For that he was convicted of contempt.

Walt-in-Durham; January 19, 2017 at 3:49 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 1:25 wrote: "As as been explained to you, NC law regarding the results of a non testimonial order must be turned over to the subjects of the NTO as soon as the person who requested the NTO had them. As the Durham DA office requested the NTO, and Nifong was the Durham DA, and as he took over the case, he was required to turn over the results to those he had indicted as soon as he had them. He had the results before he sought indictments. When ordered by the court he turned over thousands of pages of raw data months after he had the results."

Ding - Ding - Ding! Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have A Winner!

Walt-in-Durham; January 19, 2017 at 3:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 27 days until February 14th. You have 347 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 19 days since the end of 2016, 202 days since the end of June 2016, 270 days since April 23, 2016, 309 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,153 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,504 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,327 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 19, 2017 at 7:07 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " Kennyhyderal now describes this male DNA as "evidence of a non-exculpatory nature".............................................................. As did Dr. Meehan. The exculpatory information (owed to the Defence) was the information that their clients DNA was not found nor was the DNA of any Player; January 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " Kennyhyderal now describes this male DNA as "evidence of a non-exculpatory nature".............................................................. As did Dr. Meehan. The exculpatory information (owed to the Defence) was the information that their clients DNA was not found nor was the DNA of any Player; January 19, 2017 at 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Waaa waaa waaa

Kenny whines again!; January 19, 2017 at 10:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: " Kennyhyderal now describes this male DNA as "evidence of a non-exculpatory nature".............................................................. As did Dr. Meehan. The exculpatory information (owed to the Defence) was the information that their clients DNA was not found nor was the DNA of any Player"

You claimed some entity named kilgo told you that he had been told by a Lacrosse team member that he had witnessed party attendees, non Lacrosse players, rape Crystal.

You have also gone on record as saying that the male DNA found on Crystal came from the men who raped her at the party.

So, the exculpatory part was not just that the DNA did not match the DNA of the defendants. The exculpatory part was, there was no way the people whom Nifong had indicted could have raped Crystal. And why Nifong concealed the evidence was, He wanted to convict members of the Lacrosse team of raping Crystal.

Now, again, since you do believe that the DNA came from unidentified men who had raped Crystal at the party, and you have gone on record that the police investigation was shoddy and botched, and you have noted that the identities of the men who had left their DNA on Crystal were never determined, YOU EXPLAIN WHY NIFONG. WHO BECAME AWARE OF THE DNA EVIDENCE BY APRIL OF 2006, AND WHO HAD CUSTODY OF THAT EVIDENCE FOR MONTHS, MADE NO ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY THE MEN WHO LEFT THE DNA. Hint: it was not because he could convict the Lacrosse players of kidnapping and sexual assault without DNA evidence. You ARE incredibly stupid if you actually believe that.; January 19, 2017 at 12:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: " Kennyhyderal now describes this male DNA as "evidence of a non-exculpatory nature"

The qurstion here is, who determines whether or not evidence is exculpatory? Should it be the Prosecutor who is seeking a conviction, the defense attorneys who are seeking acquittal, or the Court?

It the same kind of question as, should it be the defense attorney who rules on whether Prosecution evidence is or is not probative.; January 19, 2017 at 12:15 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Hint: it was not because he could convict the Lacrosse players of kidnapping and sexual assault without DNA evidence" :............. Hint: it was because, convinced of the guilt of Evans and Seligman, thought he could convict them on those equally serious charges without DNA; January 19, 2017 at 1:23 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "The qurstion here is, who determines whether or not evidence is exculpatory? Should it be the Prosecutor who is seeking a conviction, the defense attorneys who are seeking acquittal, or the Court"................................. It was judged that the Defence was so entitled and so it was turned over to them. There was no conspiracy.; January 19, 2017 at 1:28 PM
Anonymous said...: :Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "Hint: it was not because he could convict the Lacrosse players of kidnapping and sexual assault without DNA evidence" :............. Hint: it was because, convinced of the guilt of Evans and Seligman, thought he could convict them on those equally serious charges without DNA "

Wrong. Nifong had all three, David Evans, Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty indicted for First Degree Rape, as well as sexual assault and kidnapping.. He had zero evidence to tie any of the three men he had indicted to the alleged crime. You have not provided any evidence. He did not try to identify the men who had eft their DNA on Crystal because identifying them would have shot down his scheme to get himself elected by prosecuting them.; January 19, 2017 at 3:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "The qurstion here is, who determines whether or not evidence is exculpatory? Should it be the Prosecutor who is seeking a conviction, the defense attorneys who are seeking acquittal, or the Court"................................. It was judged that the Defence was so entitled and so it was turned over to them. There was no conspiracy. "

Wrong again.

Nifong was obligated by NC law to give the information, that the only DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the men against whom he sought indictments, actually, before he sought indictments. He did not.; January 19, 2017 at 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "The qurstion here is, who determines whether or not evidence is exculpatory? Should it be the Prosecutor who is seeking a conviction, the defense attorneys who are seeking acquittal, or the Court"................................. It was judged that the Defence was so entitled and so it was turned over to them. There was no conspiracy. "

This was an attempt to avoid giving an answer, nothing more.; January 19, 2017 at 3:13 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Why don't you come to Durham? You can go visit Nifong, explain to him how much you love him, and get him to explain why he made no effort to find the mystery rapists. Then you will have ready answers for the horrible lacrosse apologists.; January 19, 2017 at 3:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

You still have not explained why Nifong made no attempt to identify the men who had left their DNA on Crystal. If there had been a rape, and there is no evidence there was a rape, and you have provided speculation, not evidence, it was absolutely certain the rapists were not members of the lacrosse team. SO ANSWER THE D__MN QUESTION1111 WHY DID NIFONG MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY THE MALES WHO LEFT THEIR DNA ON CRYSTAL,; January 19, 2017 at 4:10 PM
Anonymous said...: It should have been typed, SO ANSWER THE D__MN QUESTION!!!! WHY DID NIFONG MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY THE MALES WHO LEFT THEIR DNA ON CRYSTAL.; January 19, 2017 at 4:17 PM
kenhyderal said...: I've answered but you don't like the answer. I too am unhappy that no effort was made to identify the source of the DNA. Nifong believed he did not need that information to convict those he considered to be the wrongdoers. Early on, Durham Police botched the investigation by failing to identify all party-goers who were present. The lawyered up "blue devil" wall of silence made this task difficult but not impossible. I dare say the DNA evidence like the party house has now been destroyed. Somebody bought off Kilgo causing him to laboriously delete all his may posts on this blog and change his e-mail address and google registration. It seems the last hope for justice lies with Players who witnessed this crime to "do the right thing"; January 19, 2017 at 4:40 PM
kenhyderal said...: I've answered but you don't like the answer. I too am unhappy that no effort was made to identify the source of the DNA. Nifong believed he did not need that information to convict those he considered to be the wrongdoers. Early on, Durham Police botched the investigation by failing to identify all party-goers who were present. The lawyered up "blue devil" wall of silence made this task difficult but not impossible. I dare say the DNA evidence like the party house has now been destroyed. Somebody bought off Kilgo causing him to laboriously delete all his may posts on this blog and change his e-mail address and google registration. It seems the last hope for justice lies with Players who witnessed this crime to "do the right thing"; January 19, 2017 at 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"I've answered but you don't like the answer."

No you haven't. You have ducked answering because YOU do not like the obvious answer.

"I too am unhappy that no effort was made to identify the source of the DNA."

Then answer the question rather than ducking it.

Nifong believed he did not need that information to convict those he considered to be the wrongdoers."

Nifong was trying to convict Lacrosse players of First Degree rape. His own statements, if you bothered to read them, were all focused on convicting Lacrosse players of rape. The only male DNA recovered from Crystal's person did not match the DNA of the men he wanted to convict. Had Nifong made that evidenceto the indictrd men when he indicted them, which he was required by law to do, he woud have been unable to convict the indicted players and his ambition yo become elected would have gone down the toilet.

"Early on, Durham Police botched the investigation by failing to identify all party-goers who were present."

YOU HAVE PRODUCED ZERO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE ANY UNIDENTIFIED ATTENDEES.

"The lawyered up "blue devil" wall of silence made this task difficult but not impossible."

There was no lawyered up blue wall of silence.

"I dare say the DNA evidence like the party house has now been destroyed."

You dare to say a lot of things which have no basis in reality.

"Somebody bought off Kilgo causing him to laboriously delete all his may posts on this blog and change his e-mail address and google registration."

Something else of which you have produced zero evidence.

"It seems the last hope for justice lies with Players who witnessed this crime to 'do the right thing'".

That there were Lacrosse players is yet something else of which you have provided zero evidencr.; January 19, 2017 at 5:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Well,since you posted the same raving twice, here is my post reposted, to correct typos.

Kenhyderal:

"I've answered but you don't like the answer."

No you haven't. You have ducked answering because YOU do not like the obvious answer.

"I too am unhappy that no effort was made to identify the source of the DNA."

Then answer the question rather than ducking it.

Nifong believed he did not need that information to convict those he considered to be the wrongdoers."

Nifong was trying to convict Lacrosse players of First Degree rape. His own statements, if you bothered to read them, were all focused on convicting Lacrosse players of rape. The only male DNA recovered from Crystal's person did not match the DNA of the men he wanted to convict. Had Nifong made that evidence available to the indicted men when he indicted them, which he was required by law to do, he woud have been unable to convict the indicted players and his ambition to become elected would have gone down the toilet.

"Early on, Durham Police botched the investigation by failing to identify all party-goers who were present."

YOU HAVE PRODUCED ZERO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE ANY UNIDENTIFIED ATTENDEES.

"The lawyered up "blue devil" wall of silence made this task difficult but not impossible."

There was no lawyered up blue wall of silence.

"I dare say the DNA evidence like the party house has now been destroyed."

You dare to say a lot of things which have no basis in reality.

"Somebody bought off Kilgo causing him to laboriously delete all his may posts on this blog and change his e-mail address and google registration."

Something else of which you have produced zero evidence.

"It seems the last hope for justice lies with Players who witnessed this crime to 'do the right thing'".

That there were Lacrosse players is yet something else of which you have provided zero evidence.; January 19, 2017 at 5:18 PM
A Lawyer said...: I too am unhappy that no effort was made to identify the source of the DNA. Nifong believed he did not need that information to convict those he considered to be the wrongdoers.

What you haven't answered is how he could possibly have considered the three Lacrosse players to be the wrongdoers, when he knew that (1) none of them had left DNA on Crystal, but (2) multiple OTHER males had.; January 19, 2017 at 8:24 PM
kenhyderal said...: A Lawyer said: "What you haven't answered is how he could possibly have considered the three Lacrosse players to be the wrongdoers, when he knew that (1) none of them had left DNA on Crystal, but (2) multiple OTHER males had".................. (1) DA Nifong felt the accused, despite not leaving DNA, were criminally involved in a rape (2) Five other samples, two explained by Crystal's consensual sexual history, and three not explained by her week long minute by minute accounting of her time. The likely explanation is that the samples gathered immediately after the alleged rape along with the evidence of Dr. Manley and Nurse Levicy at Duke indicated that this DNA was probably deposited by a rape at the party.; January 19, 2017 at 9:08 PM
kenhyderal said...: A Lawyer said: "What you haven't answered is how he could possibly have considered the three Lacrosse players to be the wrongdoers, when he knew that (1) none of them had left DNA on Crystal, but (2) multiple OTHER males had".................. (1) DA Nifong felt the accused, despite not leaving DNA, were criminally involved in a rape (2) Five other samples, two explained by Crystal's consensual sexual history, and three not explained by her week long minute by minute accounting of her time. The likely explanation is that the samples gathered immediately after the alleged rape along with the evidence of Dr. Manley and Nurse Levicy at Duke indicated that this DNA was probably deposited by a rape at the party.; January 19, 2017 at 9:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"A Lawyer said: "What you haven't answered is how he could possibly have considered the three Lacrosse players to be the wrongdoers, when he knew that (1) none of them had left DNA on Crystal, but (2) multiple OTHER males had".................."

"(1) DA Nifong felt the accused, despite not leaving DNA, were criminally involved in a rape"

So explain why Mifomg, after having the medical record, instigated a lineup procedure which was totally improper and invalid to get Crystal to identify the Lacrosse players as assailants. Two of those indicted had solid evidence they were not at the alleged crime scene at the tome of the alleged crime. That Nifong considered Reade Seligmam's alibi contrived is irrelevant. A decent ethical prosecutor would not, as Nifong did, tried to exclude Reade Seligman's alibi evidence. Crystal claimed David Evans had a mustache, and there is zero evidence that he ever sported a mustache. Speculation as to ehy Crystal said David Evans had a mustache does not establish hedid. Neither does something you once said, that kilgo once saw a picture of DavidEvans with a mustache. That picture is part of the state of nothingness from which kilgo's lacrosse player friend came.

"(2) Five other samples, two explained by Crystal's consensual sexual history, and three not explained by her week long minute by minute accounting of her time."

You can not establish that this DNA was deposited at the party.

"The likely explanation is that the samples gathered immediately after the alleged rape along with the evidence of Dr. Manley and Nurse Levicy at Duke indicated that this DNA was probably deposited by a rape at the party."

First, you are referring to the White fluid Dr. Manly saw in Crystal's genital tract. Dr. Manly did not do a wet mount, a simple, low tech process which would have established whether or not the fluid was semen. She DID NOT, at that point in time, that the fluid was semen. And if the fluid was semen the rape kit materials would have tested positive for Alkaline Phosphatase and the materials tested negative, and your speculation as to why the Rape kit materials tested negative does not establish that semen was deposited on Crystal at the party. So far as Tara Levicy, it has been established that she was a SANE in training, not a certified, credentialed SANE, that Dr. Manly, not Levicy, did the physical exam, and the only finding was diffuse vaginal edema which is not a finding pathognomic of rape. Dr. Manly and Tara Levicy, like you, produced zero evidence that a rape had occurred.

And you have yet to explain why, if there was evidence of a rape, did Nifong make zero effort to identify who had left theit DNA on Crystal. You dodge and duck each and every time you are faced with the question.; January 20, 2017 at 3:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 26 days until February 14th. You have 346 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 20 days since the end of 2016, 203 days since the end of June 2016, 271 days since April 23, 2016, 310 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,154 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,505 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,328 days.

It has been 19 days since the end of 2016, 202 days since the end of June 2016, 270 days since April 23, 2016, 309 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,153 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,504 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,327 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 20, 2017 at 3:39 AM
Anonymous said...: A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; January 20, 2017 at 4:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Funny how Kenny, in addition to his whining, is focusing back on Nifong and not defending Sid. He must realize Sid has given up on any attempts to help Crystal.; January 20, 2017 at 5:02 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "As did Dr. Meehan. The exculpatory information (owed to the Defence) was the information that their clients DNA was not found nor was the DNA of any Player"

That is not the definition of exculpatory evidence. Dr. Meehan is not an authoritative source for that definition. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) "A prosecution that withholds evidence on demand of an accused which, if made available, would tend to exculpate him or reduce the penalty helps shape a trial that bears heavily on the defendant." Brady at 87. The issue is evidence which tends to exulpate the defendant. Thus, the evidence does not have to be completely exculpatory, though it was in this case.

Regardless, the uninformed opinion of Dr. Meehan is no substitute for that of the Supreme Court. Further, due process also requires disclosure of any evidence that provides grounds for the defense to attack the reliability, thoroughness, and good faith of the police investigation, to impeach the credibility of the state’s witnesses, or to bolster the defense case against prosecutorial attacks. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 442 n.134, 445-451 (1995). Impeachment material falls under Brady and must be disclosed, even if it does not directly go to innocence. Youngblood v. West Virginia, 547 U.S. 867, (2006).

Walt-in-Durham; January 20, 2017 at 6:59 AM
THE GREAT KILGO said...: I am here in Durham waiting for you to call me.; January 20, 2017 at 7:43 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny stated: Five other samples, two explained by Crystal's consensual sexual history, and three not explained by her week long minute by minute accounting of her time.

I believe that you are mistaken about the number of unexplained male DNA samples found on and in Magnum.

Wikipedia observes: At Nifong's subsequent ethics trial on June 14, 2007, the complete DNA findings were revealed during defense attorney Brad Bannon's testimony. According to conservative estimates, the lab had discovered at least two unidentified males' DNA in Mangum's pubic region; at least two unidentified males' DNA in her rectum; at least four to five unidentified males' DNA on her underpants; and at least one identified male's DNA in her vagina.

Kenny, how do you explain the additional DNA samples? After considering the three mystery rapists, was Mangum's consensual sexual history still \ incomplete? Or do you simply increase the number of mystery rapists?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; January 20, 2017 at 7:49 AM
Anonymous said...: A sarcastic man is a wounded man.; January 20, 2017 at 7:55 AM
A Lawyer said...: (1) DA Nifong felt the accused, despite not leaving DNA, were criminally involved in a rape (2) Five other samples, two explained by Crystal's consensual sexual history, and three not explained by her week long minute by minute accounting of her time. The likely explanation is that the samples gathered immediately after the alleged rape along with the evidence of Dr. Manley and Nurse Levicy at Duke indicated that this DNA was probably deposited by a rape at the party.

So, if Nifong knew this, why didn't he try to find out who the rapists were who left this DNA? Instead, he indicted three players who hadn't left DNA (two of whom had solid alibi evidence), and made no public statement that there might be other perpetrators out there.; January 20, 2017 at 8:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 25 days until February 14th. You have 345 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 21 days since the end of 2016, 204 days since the end of June 2016, 272 days since April 23, 2016, 311 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,155 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,506 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,325 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 21, 2017 at 7:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man?; January 22, 2017 at 4:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 24 days until February 14th. You have 344 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 22 days since the end of 2016, 205 days since the end of June 2016, 273 days since April 23, 2016, 312 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,156 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,507 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,324 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 22, 2017 at 7:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 23 days until February 14th. You have 343 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 23 days since the end of 2016, 206 days since the end of June 2016, 274 days since April 23, 2016, 313 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,157 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,508 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,322 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 23, 2017 at 5:18 AM
Walt said...: Sid, you didn't keep us up to date on your latest frivolous lawsuit. A short order from the court: "This matter comes now before the court upon several motions filed by plaintiff, proceeding pro se. No good cause having been shown, plaintiff's motion for judicial recusal is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion to amend is ALLOWED. Defendants WRAL-5 News and James F. Goodmon are dismissed from this action. Entered by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 1/17/2017."

As A Lawyer and I have educated you many times before, a previous adverse ruling is not grounds for recusal. Thus the court denied your motion.

The court also dismissed Goodman and WRAL from your frivolous litigation, on your motion. This represents a first, you have actually learned something. I guess in eleven years, you had to learn something. I hope it's not another eleven years before you evidence learning again.

Walt-in-Durham; January 23, 2017 at 6:31 AM
A Lawyer said...: The court also dismissed Goodman and WRAL from your frivolous litigation, on your motion

Which means that, instead of one dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, Dr. Harr will now get two dismissals on the merits (one in federal court and one in state court). It would not surprise me if the federal court also added some pre-filing sanctions, though that is not a guarantee.; January 23, 2017 at 8:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 22 days until February 14th. You have 342 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 24 days since the end of 2016, 207 days since the end of June 2016, 275 days since April 23, 2016, 314 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,158 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,509 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,321 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 24, 2017 at 4:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 21 days until February 14th. You have 341 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 25 days since the end of 2016, 208 days since the end of June 2016, 276 days since April 23, 2016, 315 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,159 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,510 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,320 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 25, 2017 at 4:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney:

It has been two days since Walt informed us that your motion to recusehas been denied.; January 25, 2017 at 7:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man?; January 25, 2017 at 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney:

Now 3 days since Walt revealed that your motion to recuse has been denied.; January 26, 2017 at 3:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 20 days until February 14th. You have 340 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 26 days since the end of 2016, 209 days since the end of June 2016, 277 days since April 23, 2016, 316 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,160 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,511 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,319 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 26, 2017 at 3:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid, you didn't keep us up to date on your latest frivolous lawsuit. A short order from the court: "This matter comes now before the court upon several motions filed by plaintiff, proceeding pro se. No good cause having been shown, plaintiff's motion for judicial recusal is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion to amend is ALLOWED. Defendants WRAL-5 News and James F. Goodmon are dismissed from this action. Entered by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 1/17/2017."

As A Lawyer and I have educated you many times before, a previous adverse ruling is not grounds for recusal. Thus the court denied your motion.

The court also dismissed Goodman and WRAL from your frivolous litigation, on your motion. This represents a first, you have actually learned something. I guess in eleven years, you had to learn something. I hope it's not another eleven years before you evidence learning again.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

Please note that I am not averse to being enlightened, and I do appreciate the efforts of you, A Lawyer, JSwift, and others in educating me, a mere layperson, about the complexities of the law. So thank you all.

The reason that I have not been as active on this blog site as usual is because I have been extremely busy with making preparations for Crystal's release from custody and subsequent exoneration. I'm talking about months at the latest. So now would be a good time to place all orders for crying towels.

Knowing me as you do, you have probably already correctly assumed that Mangum's case takes precedence above all others with which I am involved. Freedom trumps all... even restorative justice from libelous statements.

My libel case is strong, despite having a shopped judge who refuses to recuse herself. In legal matters, with truth and justice there is always hope. Ergo, as in Mangum's case, there is no doubt in my mind that I will prevail with respect to the libel lawsuit against both Gabe Roth and WRAL.

Also, Walt, is it your contention that WRAL and Fix-the-Court's publications about me and the 2010 discrimination at Duke University were accurate?; January 26, 2017 at 6:15 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney:

Now 3 days since Walt revealed that your motion to recuse has been denied.

Seems like Abe has spawned another calendar-time keeper.

Although I am grateful to Walt for informing blog commenters of the most recent action in my libel suit, I am in no way in distress. If I am able to get a jury trial, I have every confidence of prevailing. The only hurdle I will have to overcome in dealings with a shopped judge is being denied my day in court with the granting of the inevitable Motion to Dismiss. With a jury, truth will lead and justice will deliver the knockout blow.; January 26, 2017 at 6:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

As I have mentioned in the above comments, I have recently been extremely busy working on gaining freedom and an exoneration for Crystal Mangum. I have never been more confident in her finally receiving the justice she deserves. Pay strict attention over the next few weeks and you will observe chinks in the defensive armor of Mangum detractors bent on punishing her for perceived slights in the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case.

I will most likely keep you posted through Announcement comments such as this, rather than by sharlogs which take too much time to produce. That said, I am no prognosticator, but from where I sit, I am extremely optimistic for a positive outcome for Mangum that is long overdo.

So, pay attention... pay close attention.

As you were.; January 26, 2017 at 6:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney says:

"I'm talking about months at the latest."

I thought you said February 14 is when the gates would open for Mangum?

Sidney also said:

"The reason that I have not been as active on this blog site as usual is because I have been extremely busy with making preparations for Crystal's release from custody and subsequent exoneration."

'preparations' - please elucidate.; January 26, 2017 at 6:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Seems like Abe has spawned another calendar-time keeper.

Although I am grateful to Walt for informing blog commenters of the most recent action in my libel suit, I am in no way in distress. If I am able to get a jury trial, I have every confidence of prevailing. The only hurdle I will have to overcome in dealings with a shopped judge is being denied my day in court with the granting of the inevitable Motion to Dismiss. With a jury, truth will lead and justice will deliver the knockout blow."

Yet more evidence you are adverse to accepting enlightenment.; January 26, 2017 at 7:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!"

Meaning, I crave attention. So everybody pay attention to me.

"As I have mentioned in the above comments, I have recently been extremely busy working on gaining freedom and an exoneration for Crystal Mangum. I have never been more confident in her finally receiving the justice she deserves."

Crystal got the justice she deserved when she was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye"

"Pay strict attention over the next few weeks and you will observe chinks in the defensive armor of Mangum detractors bent on punishing her for perceived slights in the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case."

Yet more evidence you are not amenable to enlightenment.

"I will most likely keep you posted through Announcement comments such as this, rather than by sharlogs which take too much time to produce. That said, I am no prognosticator, but from where I sit, I am extremely optimistic for a positive outcome for Mangum that is long overdo."

How many years have you been saying that. For so many years you have repeatedly demonstrated you are not amenable to enlightenment.

"So, pay attention... pay close attention."

We have been, to your many futile attempts to deliver on your promises.; January 26, 2017 at 7:28 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Also, Walt, is it your contention that WRAL and Fix-the-Court's publications about me and the 2010 discrimination at Duke University were accurate?"

I know you don't really get the whole burden of proof issue. But, it is you, Sid, who must prove, not me to disprove. Get that through your head.

For your edification, though I don't really expect you to be educated, so this is really for everyone else who is interested in some information. Under North Carolina law, the plaintiff (Sid in his case) must prove the following:
(1) the defendant published a false statement,
(2) material harm due to the publication, and
(3) the statement was published at least negligently.

Under North Carolina defamation law, a statement is considered inherently libelous if it:
(1) Maintains that an individual is guilty of a crime,
(2) Claims that an individual has an infectious disease,
(3) Attempts to discredit a person in their profession or industry, or
(4) In some other way, subjects an individual to public disgrace, contempt or ridicule.

What does “inherently libelous” mean on a practical level? It means the plaintiff does not have to prove harm (pillar #2 above), because it’s naturally understood. Inherently libelous claims though do not lead to an automatic award of damages. Thus even a win may not result in much. (Assuming a win, which is far from a safe assumption as Sid hasn't yet plead sufficient proof.)

North Carolina defamation law allows for several defenses and privileges, such as fair reporting and fair comment, opinion, and substantial truth. Under the law, a statement does not have to be 100% accurate to be true. In other words, small mistakes are typically overlooked, provided they don’t significantly affect the substance or impact of a statement. These are defenses though. Assuming Sid survives the upcoming motion to dismiss because the Eastern District does not have jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, it is the defendant's burden to raise those defenses. Of course, Sid can't prove the Eastern District has jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, so his suit is likely to die an early death because he refuses to respect even the most basic premises of the law. Shame on him.

Many defamation defenses can be overcome if the plaintiff proves the defendant was motivated by “actual malice.” However, this is not applicable to website operator immunity outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The issue of whether actual malice supersedes the fair report privilege still needs to be clarified in North Carolina.; January 26, 2017 at 7:44 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney said,
"I'm talking about months at the latest."
How many months? 110?; January 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM
A Lawyer said...: Also, Walt, is it your contention that WRAL and Fix-the-Court's publications about me and the 2010 discrimination at Duke University were accurate?

I'm not Walt, but I'll answer.

WRAL's statements about you were accurate. They accurately reported that the federal court had sanctioned you. And their statement that your suit against Duke had something to do with the Lacrosse case is also true, as I demonstrated in my comment of January 18 at 8:29 p.m., to which you never responded.

Fix-the-Court's statement that you "accosted" Justice Breyer may or may not be true, but it is certainly not defamatory-- to "accost" someone is not a crime. Had they said you "assaulted" Justice Breyer, that would be defamatory.; January 26, 2017 at 3:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man?; January 26, 2017 at 3:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Has anyone seen the little man?; January 27, 2017 at 3:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 19 days until February 14th. You have 339 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 27 days since the end of 2016, 210 days since the end of June 2016, 278 days since April 24, 2016, 317 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,161 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,512 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,318 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 27, 2017 at 3:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt or A Lawyer:

Sid's latest lolsuit seems to focus on alleged inaccuracies in reports made by WRAL and Fix The Court. Assuming the statements are, in fact, inaccurate, it seems to me that there is a difference between a statement being inaccurate and actionably defamatory. For example, I have personally been involved in several stories that were reported in the media. Based on my personal knowledge, I thought that the media's coverage of those stories was inaccurate - sometimes in significant ways - but I never considered them defamatory.

Am I right that mere factual inaccuracies in how a story is reported are not necessarily defamatory. If so, can you explain the difference in a way that a simple sausage maker or a retired ER physician can understand?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 27, 2017 at 5:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Abe, let's have Sidney Harr explain why those stories are defamatory.; January 27, 2017 at 6:09 AM
Walt said...: Abe wrote: "Am I right that mere factual inaccuracies in how a story is reported are not necessarily defamatory. If so, can you explain the difference in a way that a simple sausage maker or a retired ER physician can understand?"

The courts, not just in NC, but in the U.S. as a whole use a "gist of the story" standard. If the gist of the story is correct and a few minor facts are in error, then it's not defamation. For example: "the boxer tested positive for cocaine," when in fact, the boxer tested positive for marijuana was found to be substantially accurate. Cobb v. Time Inc. 24 Media L. Rep. 585 (M.D. Tenn 1995). A statement that an animal trainer beat his animals with steel rods, when actually he had beaten them with wooden rods. See People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Berosini, 895 P.2d 1269 (Nev. 1995). A statement that a man was charged with sexual assault, when actually he had only been arrested but not arraigned. See Rouch v. Enquirer & News of Battle Creek, 440 Mich. 238, ___ N.E.2d ___ (1992). In all these cases there seem to be rather substantial excursions from accuracy, but the courts found the gist of the story was accurate. For example in Rouch the court recognized that in the vernacular, being arrested was sufficiently analogous with being charged when lawyers and judges would see a world of difference, to say the report was not defamatory.

HTH,
Walt-in-Durham; January 27, 2017 at 7:22 AM
Walt said...: ^^^P.S., I selected what I consider law school examples for my post above. Because Sid refuses to do the basic legal research, which he can do at NCSU's main library, to get his case right for North Carolina law, I won't do it for him.

Walt-in-Durham; January 27, 2017 at 7:26 AM
A Lawyer said...: Abe,
To add to Walt's point, even a totally inaccurate story is not defamation unless it harms the plaintiff's reputation, i.e., subjects him to hatred, scorn or ridicule.; January 27, 2017 at 8:30 AM
Anonymous said...: "A Lawyer said...
Abe,
To add to Walt's point, even a totally inaccurate story is not defamation unless it harms the plaintiff's reputation, i.e., subjects him to hatred, scorn or ridicule."

In that case, Sid should sue himself for defamation....; January 27, 2017 at 9:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Sidney:

Now 4 days since your motion to recuse was denied. How many days before your latest frivolous lawsuit is dismissed?; January 27, 2017 at 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man?; January 27, 2017 at 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Has the little man given up?; January 28, 2017 at 6:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 18 days until February 14th. You have 338 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 28 days since the end of 2016, 211 days since the end of June 2016, 279 days since April 24, 2016, 318 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,162 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,513 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,317 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 28, 2017 at 8:04 AM
kenhyderal said...: "Never give up, never surrender, and rise up against the odds. Keep hope alive. The Rev, Jesse Jackson"; January 28, 2017 at 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Quoting eacr baiter Jesse:

"Never give up, never surrender, and rise up against the odds. Keep hope alive. The Rev, Jesse Jackson"

Which must be why trace baiter Jesse no longer has anything to do with murderess/false accuser Crystal.; January 28, 2017 at 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Jeremiah 5:21 "Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear."

Sidney and Kenny lost the use of their eyes and ears many yeas ago.; January 28, 2017 at 9:55 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
If you want to keep hope alive, DO something.; January 28, 2017 at 1:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

It's comical that you quote Rev. Jesse. After promising to provide financial support to Crystal, he bailed when her story fell apart. He knew she was radioactive.; January 28, 2017 at 6:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 17 days until February 14th. You have 337 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 29 days since the end of 2016, 212 days since the end of June 2016, 280 days since April 24, 2016, 319 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,163 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,514 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,316 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 29, 2017 at 5:45 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Guiowen: "Do what you can with what you have from where you are"; January 29, 2017 at 9:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

quoting guiw\\owen:

"Do what you can with what you have from where you are"

Neither Kenny nor Sidney have been able to do anything. Where they are must be totally lost and deluded.; January 29, 2017 at 9:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Correction

Kenhyderal:

quoting guiw\\owen:

"Do what you can with what you have from where you are"

Neither Kenny nor Sidney have NOT been able to do anything. Where they are must be totally lost and deluded.; January 29, 2017 at 9:42 AM
kenhyderal said...: Double negative; January 29, 2017 at 10:11 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous:6:19 PM 1-28-17: Rev. Jackson was immediately beset upon by the Duke Lacrosse Team and their surrogates, about his illegitimate child at a time when this was straining his own marriage. Supporting Crystal would have insured that this assault continued exposing him to the same smear tactics as DA Nifong and of Crystal herself. Rev. Jackson withdrew but he remains sympathetic to Crystal's plight.; January 29, 2017 at 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ Anonymous:6:19 PM 1-28-17: Rev. Jackson was immediately beset upon by the Duke Lacrosse Team and their surrogates, about his illegitimate child at a time when this was straining his own marriage. Supporting Crystal would have insured that this assault continued exposing him to the same smear tactics as DA Nifong and of Crystal herself. Rev. Jackson withdrew but he remains sympathetic to Crystal's plight."

Irrelevant statement, as neither the innocent Lacrosse players nor their attorneys used smear tactics on anyone. The only individual who ever tried to smear anyone was Nifong. Like Kenhyderal, Nifong had zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she was raped. But Nifong went public with multiple statements that Crystal had been raped, that members of the Lacrosse team had perpetrated the rape, and, and rgar rge rape had been a racially motivated hate crime.; January 29, 2017 at 11:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Give specific references to specific instances when the Duke Lacrosse attorbeys ever mentioned Jesse Jackson's illegitimate child.; January 29, 2017 at 11:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Checkout http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/19/us/jackson-says-he-fathered-child-in-affair-with-aide.html:

Jesse Jackson's affair became public knowledge in 2001, years before Crystal lied about being raped by members of the Duke Lacrosse team.; January 29, 2017 at 11:51 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
I've been suggesting for years now that you come to Durham. It's not as if you can't afford it: you've already told us you're in the UAE because of "the almighty dollar".
So why can't you do anything other than post inane comments on an unimportant blog site?; January 29, 2017 at 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Blogger kenhyderal said...

@ Anonymous:6:19 PM 1-28-17: Rev. Jackson was immediately beset upon by the Duke Lacrosse Team and their surrogates, about his illegitimate child at a time when this was straining his own marriage. Supporting Crystal would have insured that this assault continued exposing him to the same smear tactics as DA Nifong and of Crystal herself. Rev. Jackson withdrew but he remains sympathetic to Crystal's plight.

January 29, 2017 at 10:37 AM

Bawawa Bawawa Bawawa; January 29, 2017 at 11:58 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

Can you identify who among the Duke lacrosse team and their surrogates "beset upon Jesse Jackson" and what they said about his illegitimate child, or is this just another one of your lies?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 29, 2017 at 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny is having another one of his delusional fantasies.; January 29, 2017 at 2:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: How about KC Johnson? This vindictive blogger, with an extreme hatred for Duke President Brodhead, saw the Duke Lacrosse Defence strategy of sliming anyone questioning the guilt of their clients as a great vehicle for him to go after his nemesis. In this nefarious enterprise he became one of the defence's principal disseminators in the mutually beneficial enterprise of slandering Crystal and DA Nifong http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.ca/2007/06/moral-certainty.html; January 29, 2017 at 3:08 PM
kenhyderal said...: How about KC Johnson? This vindictive blogger, with an extreme hatred for Duke President Brodhead, saw the Duke Lacrosse Defence strategy of sliming anyone questioning the guilt of their clients as a great vehicle for him to go after his nemesis. In this nefarious enterprise he became one of the defence's principal disseminators in the mutually beneficial enterprise of slandering Crystal and DA Nifong http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.ca/2007/06/moral-certainty.html; January 29, 2017 at 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger kenhyderal said...

"Rev. Jackson was immediately beset upon by the Duke Lacrosse Team and their surrogates, about his illegitimate child at a time when this was straining his own marriage."

Where does KC Johnson mention anything in his June 9, 2007 post about an illegitimate child?; January 29, 2017 at 3:55 PM
guiowen said...: So, Kenny, we ask you about Jesse Jackson, and all you can come up with is that Johnson doesn't like Brodhead?
What does Johnson (or Brodhead) have to do with Jackson?; January 29, 2017 at 4:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"How about KC Johnson? This vindictive blogger, with an extreme hatred for Duke President Brodhead, saw the Duke Lacrosse Defence strategy of sliming anyone questioning the guilt of their clients as a great vehicle for him to go after his nemesis. In this nefarious enterprise he became one of the defence's principal disseminators in the mutually beneficial enterprise of slandering Crystal and DA Nifong http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.ca/2007/06/moral-certainty.html"

Another irrelevant statement by Kenhyderal as no one involved with the innocent Lacrosse players, neither the defendants themselves, nor their counsel nor KC Johnson ever engaged in sliming Crystal or Nifong or President Brodhead. Pointing out that Crystal lied about being raped, that Nifong prosecuted wrongfully, that the President of Duke treated his students as if they were guilty, that race baiter Jesse proclaimed a lot of untruths about the case(which is what the blog reference describes), is telling the truth, not sliming.

Kenny, if Crystal could prove she had been raped, if she could prove she had been defamed, why did she not do so. I have said this before. Trial lawyers advertise they handle lawsuits on a contingency fee basis. If Crystal had a case against the Lacrosse players, many capable trial lawyers would have taken her case. Come up with whatever delusion you want to believe. There was no civil action filed against the Lacrosse defendants because Crystal di not have a case.

Kenhyderal again shows how incapable he is of comprehending the truth.; January 29, 2017 at 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

Johnson's blog won multiple awards for its reporting of the Duke rape hoax. What did he say that was false, misleading, offensive, vindictive or even objectionable in the post you referenced when you were called out for lying again?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 29, 2017 at 4:35 PM
kenhyderal said...: Oh KC is too crafty, himself, to commit libel but his regular contributors, many of them anonymous, he, tacitly, never calls out for their slanderous and even racist posts. The example given was about the Reverend Jackson but his characterizations of The Duke Lacrosse case are also false and misleading. His real motivation was not, principally, to support Evans, Finnerty or Seligmann but to discredit Brodhead someone who was critical of his biography of Melville.; January 29, 2017 at 9:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Oh KC is too crafty, himself, to commit libel but his regular contributors, many of them anonymous, he, tacitly, never calls out for their slanderous and even racist posts. The example given was about the Reverend Jackson but his characterizations of The Duke Lacrosse case are also false and misleading. His real motivation was not, principally, to support Evans, Finnerty or Seligmann but to discredit Brodhead someone who was critical of his biography of Melville."

Typical Kenhyderal evasiveness.

He says the Duke defense attorneys smeared Crystal. When challenged t give specific instances, he says well, they did it via their proxies on Liestoppers.

He claims KC Johnson smeared Jesse Jackson,. He was challenged to give examples. He says Professor Johnson did it by proxy, via anonymous posts to his blog.

It adds up to, Kenhyderal can not rovide any facts to back up his allegations, just like he can not provide any proof that Crystal told the truth when she accused innocent men of raping her.

Kenhyderal again documents he can noy comrehend the truth.

Krnhyderal has had no comment about fact that Jesse Jackson's affair became public knowledge years before Crystal falsely accused the innocent Lacrosse players of raping her. It is called denial.; January 30, 2017 at 3:10 AM
Anonymous said...: So, are you saying that KC Johnson wrote a biography of Melville?; January 30, 2017 at 3:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Kennyhyderal,

You are clearly confused.

KC Johnson did not write a biography of Melville. Hershel Parker, whose Liestopper posts under the pseudonym "Payback" were sharply critical of Brodhead, is the author of the Melville biography Brodhead criticized.

I suggest you apologize for your mistake.; January 30, 2017 at 3:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh, KC is too crafty to write the Melville biography himself. He had his surrogate, Parker, write the biography and then he never called out Parker for his posts.; January 30, 2017 at 3:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

There are 16 days until February 14th. You have 336 days to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017.

It has been 30 days since the end of 2016, 213 days since the end of June 2016, 281 days since April 24, 2016, 320 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,164 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,515 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,315 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 30, 2017 at 3:55 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny:

KC Johnson didn't write a biography of Melville. I didn't think it was possible, but you are embarrassing yourself.

See what happens when you tell lies?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; January 30, 2017 at 3:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Abe,
To add to Walt's point, even a totally inaccurate story is not defamation unless it harms the plaintiff's reputation, i.e., subjects him to hatred, scorn or ridicule.

Hey, A Lawyer. Good point. Did you see the comments about me on the racist site "shitskin.com"?; January 30, 2017 at 4:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Walt or A Lawyer:

Sid's latest lolsuit seems to focus on alleged inaccuracies in reports made by WRAL and Fix The Court. Assuming the statements are, in fact, inaccurate, it seems to me that there is a difference between a statement being inaccurate and actionably defamatory. For example, I have personally been involved in several stories that were reported in the media. Based on my personal knowledge, I thought that the media's coverage of those stories was inaccurate - sometimes in significant ways - but I never considered them defamatory.

Am I right that mere factual inaccuracies in how a story is reported are not necessarily defamatory. If so, can you explain the difference in a way that a simple sausage maker or a retired ER physician can understand?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe.

What you, Walt, A Lawyer, and others fail to realize is that the WRAL story led directly to the racist attack and scorn by the shitskin.com blog site. Had the story been fair, objective, and factual, then this would not have happened. By fair, the WRAL story quoted statements by the judge... never quoting anything from my record or even attempting to get my comments before publishing and broadcasting the story. One-sided.

It was neither factual nor objective in that it willfully placed my lawsuits as originating from the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case... which it in the article had described as being "discredited." The reason it made no mention of the 2010 discrimination by Duke against me is because it wanted to keep this from the public.

What is most troublesome is that the media Goliath refused to communicate with me or make corrections in article. If you look up that article today, the same falsehoods will be there despite my many written attempts to have them correct the article. Had they done so immediately, then it is unlikely that I would have filed the lawsuit against them. I did so as a last resort.

Answer me this Walt, A Lawyer, and Abe: Do you believe that it is responsible journalism to leave an online article unchanged despite being aware that it is inaccurate? Does the media owe it to the public to acknowledge and correct mistakes it makes?; January 30, 2017 at 4:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney says:

"I'm talking about months at the latest."

I thought you said February 14 is when the gates would open for Mangum?

Sidney also said:

"The reason that I have not been as active on this blog site as usual is because I have been extremely busy with making preparations for Crystal's release from custody and subsequent exoneration."

'preparations' - please elucidate.

I do not always believe in tipping my hand when the situation is at a critical stage. There is imminent action which will hopefully have fruitful results in the near future.

"Be patient, and you will see." -- a Harrism; January 30, 2017 at 4:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

shitskin.com is obnoxious, but, likr your site, the claims are so obviously ridiculous no one of sound mind would ever take them seriously.; January 30, 2017 at 4:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidnet Harr:

"I do not always believe in tipping my hand when the situation is at a critical stage. There is imminent action which will hopefully have fruitful results in the near future."

Another way of you admitting, I haven't accomplished squat and I am not about to accomplish anything.

"'Be patient, and you will see.' -- a Harrism"

We have been patient. So far we have seen nothing, as Abe has pointed out to you on many occasions.

This, rather, is more Harrian delusional megalomania.; January 30, 2017 at 5:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"What you, Walt, A Lawyer, and others fail to realize is that the WRAL story led directly to the racist attack and scorn by the shitskin.com blog site.
Had the story been fair, objective, and factual, then this would not have happened."

You are saying shitskin.com happened because of the stoey WRAL published about you. You document you are a dekusional megalomaniac.

"By fair, the WRAL story quoted statements by the judge... never quoting anything from my record or even attempting to get my comments before publishing and broadcasting the story."

Presumes a fact not in evidence, that your record shows anything that is fair and factual. You still refer to Crystal, the victimizer/false accuser in the Duke Rape Hoax as the "victim/accuser in the "Duke Rape Case". Yet you have presented zero evidence she rver told the truth about being raped.; January 30, 2017 at 5:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"It was neither factual nor objective in that it willfully placed my lawsuits as originating from the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case... which it in the article had described as being 'discredited.'"

As there was zero evidence that Crystal told the truth when she said she was raped, and neither you nor Kenhyderal have provided any, Crystal's accusations, Nifong's indictments of te Lacrosse players WERE discredited.

"The reason it made no mention of the 2010 discrimination by Duke against me is because it wanted to keep this from the public."

Did you or did you not say in your complaints against Duke that Duke officials conspired to discriminate against you after you informed them of the Breyer event and they conspired to discriminate against you because of your advocacy for Mike Nifong. Did your advocacy for Nifong, or did it not, happen because of Nifong's disbarment. Was Nifong's disbarment, or was it not, a consequence of the Lacrosse incident?; January 30, 2017 at 6:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Answer me this Walt, A Lawyer, and Abe: Do you believe that it is responsible journalism to leave an online article unchanged despite being aware that it is inaccurate?"

You do not like it, nor do you consider it responsible, that posters question what you post on line, even when you post something which is obviously false, e.g. that the Lacrosse players were guilty of raping Crystal(de facto you proclaim that each and every time you post, without evidence, that Crystal was the"victim/accuser" in the Duke Rape Case, which was actually the Duke Rape Hoax). Can we say Hypocrisy, boys and girls?

"Does the media owe it to the public to acknowledge and correct mistakes it makes?"

Why have you never acknowledged or corrected your mistakes, e.g. Shan Carter who chased down and killed a rival drug dealer who was fleeing, in the process killing an innocent 8 year old boy, acted in self defense. Can we repeat Hypocrisy, boys and girls?; January 30, 2017 at 7:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"I do not always believe in tipping my hand when the situation is at a critical stage. There is imminent action which will hopefully have fruitful results in the near future."

Actually means, I haven't accomplished a d--n thing, but am trying to bffle you with more bullshit.

"'Be patient, and you will see.' -- a Harrism"

We have been patient but have yet to see anything.; January 30, 2017 at 10:30 AM
Anonymous said...: When is Kenhyderal going to chime in again with more mindless, meaningless drivel; January 30, 2017 at 10:31 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 1043 Newer› Newest»

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Harr v. WRAL, Fix-the-Court, et al.: Motion for Judicial Recusal

1,043 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me