justice4nifong: Libel lawsuit: Harr v. WRAL-5 .. Plaintiff responds

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Libel lawsuit: Harr v. WRAL-5 .. Plaintiff responds

743 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 743 Newer› Newest»

Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney said
"movement, one way or the other"
In other words, it could be something bad for Crystal?

gui, mon ami,

My reference to "one way or the other" was actually in reference to the three motions Crystal filed with the court. The State has been given until April 7th to respond to the motions, and I anticipate that a decision on the motions would come a week later.

Because of the strength of Crystal's case, I do not expect her Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to be denied.; March 29, 2017 at 6:11 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
No, Sid is saying that the Federal Judge should dismiss her Habeas by mid April, which Sid will say is an unexpected setback (even though we've all told him it's going to happen because he continues to refuse to follow the law), and then he will say he's appealing, so expects full exoneration soon.

That's exactly what I would predict (except the denial may take longer than mid-April). Other than that, I think your predictions are spot-on: the federal court will deny the habeas; Dr. Harr will profess shock; there will be an appeal. I will make one more prediction: the appeal will be unsuccessful.

Hey, A Lawyer.

As explained in my previous comment, the "movement in Mangum's case" that I was referring to had to do with the three motions she filed along with her Response in mid-March. I am positive that all three motions will be granted.

Her habeas corpus is extremely strong, and I have no doubt that it will be granted, as well.; March 29, 2017 at 6:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, A Lawyer, and others have explained why you are wrong on the habeas petition. It will be denied for the reasons they've already specified (including your unwillingness to do basic internet research).; March 29, 2017 at 8:14 AM
A Lawyer said...: As explained in my previous comment, the "movement in Mangum's case" that I was referring to had to do with the three motions she filed along with her Response in mid-March.

What three motions were those? Have you posted them?

I am positive that all three motions will be granted.

Forgive me for noting that your prior predictions have not had a high degree of accuracy.

Her habeas corpus is extremely strong, and I have no doubt that it will be granted, as well.

None of the claims were exhausted in state court, so it will not be granted. What color crying towel would you like when the habeas is denied?; March 29, 2017 at 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"gui, mon ami,

My reference to "one way or the other" was actually in reference to the three motions Crystal filed with the court. The State has been given until April 7th to respond to the motions, and I anticipate that a decision on the motions would come a week later.

Because of the strength of Crystal's case, I do not expect her Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to be denied."

Except the strength of Crystal's case is zero, just like the evidence Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped.

And you have had a lot of expectations about Crystal's case, all of which have added up to zero.; March 29, 2017 at 12:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Her habeas corpus is extremely strong, and I have no doubt that it will be granted, as well."

You again demonstrate your delusional megalomania.

We await your next lame excuse as to why you were wrong.; March 29, 2017 at 12:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt had posted it. The 3 Motions are (if I remember correctly):

1. Allow the State extra time to respond (which is ridiculous, cause that's not something Crystal responds to;

2. Overturn the conviction for Murder;

3. Let Crystal out on Bond.; March 29, 2017 at 12:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 277 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 2 weeks and 1 day you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 15 days since the Ides of March 2017, 44 days since February 14, 2017, 89 days since the end of 2016, 272 days since the end of June 2016, 340 days since April 24, 2016, 380 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,223 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,574 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,256 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 30, 2017 at 2:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey

Ubes

Udaman; March 30, 2017 at 3:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 276 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 2 weeks and 2 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 16 days since the Ides of March 2017, 45 days since February 14, 2017, 90 days since the end of 2016, 273 days since the end of June 2016, 341 days since April 24, 2016, 381 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,224 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,575 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,255 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; March 31, 2017 at 3:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Yo

Kenny

Udaman; March 31, 2017 at 3:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
SUPER-IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

The State filed its responses to the three motions Crystal Mangum filed being:
1) Motion to place Petitioner under house arrest;
2) Motion to compel State Bar to issue ruling on Grievance against Attorney Petersen filed two years ago; and
3) Motion to compel the Court to unseal the 18-page document on Dr. Nichols and provide a copy to Petitioner.

Maybe Walt will be able to provide a link to these motions?

As you were.; March 31, 2017 at 6:05 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: To quote former Governor Rick Perry: "Oopsie." What I meant to say is "Maybe Walt will be able to provide a link to the State's responses to the motions."; March 31, 2017 at 6:48 AM
Walt said...: Sid, they are not motions. They are responses. And no, I will not provide a link but I will copy the relevant portions of the response here.

Release on Bail
While a number of the federal circuit courts have concluded that a federal district court has the inherent power to release a state prisoner on recognizance or surety in the course of habeas corpus proceedings, “[t]he only authority for the release by a federal court of a state prisoner is the habeas corpus statute 28 U.S.C. § § 2241-2255.” Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499, 508 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing cases from the First, Second, Third and Fifth circuits holding that a federal court’s authority to release a state prisoner on recognizance or surety in the course of a habeas corpus proceeding derives from the power to issue the writ itself.) Further, Even if this court decides it has the inherent authority to grant Petitioner’s motion for house arrest, release during the pendency of a federal habeas action is reserved for extraordinary cases involving special circumstances or a high probability of success. See Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3, 13 L. Ed. 2d 6 (1964); see also, Roe v. United States District Court (In re Roe), 257 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001) (circuit court ordered district court to allow re-incarceration of habeas petitioner because petitioner did not make requisite demonstration that his was an extraordinary case involving special circumstances or a high probability of success) Finally the State argues: "Here, Petitioner has a very low chance of success in her federal habeas action, which is currently subject to summary dismissal for the reasons and authorities set forth in Respondent’s originally filed brief supporting his answer and motion for summary judgment. Additionally, Petitioner has failed to show that hers is an extraordinary case involving special circumstances."

The court will find that the Fourth Circuit has never held a District Court has the authority to release pending a Habeas petition and that if it did, Crystal has not shown the high probability of success or the extraordinary case involving special circumstances. In fact, she didn't even offer the court argument on those issue.

Discovery of Dr. Nichols employment records

The state relied on its reply brief, but added: "[a]dditionally, pursuant to Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a prisoner must seek leave of court and demonstrate good cause before he is entitled to any form of discovery in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Discovery is extremely limited in such proceedings. See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904, 117 S. Ct. 1793, 138 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1997). “[I]t is clear that
there was no intention to extend to habeas corpus, as a matter of right, the broad discovery provisions ... of the new [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure].” Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 295, 89 S. Ct. 1082, 22 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1969). See also, Williams v. Bagley, 380 F.3d 932, 974 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Rule 6 does not sanction fishing expeditions based on a petitioner’s conclusory allegations. Conclusory allegations are not enough to warrant discovery under [Rule 6]; the petitioner must set forth specific allegations of fact.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1003, 125 S. Ct. 1939, 161 L. Ed. 2d 779 (2005)." Naturally, neither Sid, nor Crystal has enough respect for the law, let alone the District Court to even pretend to care enough to seek leave to conduct discovery. Being rude while not grounds to deny relief, it is grounds to require the prisoner to show why she should get the discovery. Here, we are dealing with confidential employment records which are normally exempt from discovery. Crystal, again, failed to show the court any reason why she should have them. Of course, we all know that as soon as Crystal got the records, she'd give them to Sid who would plaster them all over the internet to impugn Dr. Nichols.

Walt-in-Durham; March 31, 2017 at 7:10 AM
Walt said...: Sid, they are not motions. They are responses. And no, I will not provide a link but I will copy the relevant portions of the response here.

Compel State Bar to Rule

"In her motion, Petitioner fails to cite any statute or rule of procedure relied upon and fails to argue any legal grounds in support of her motion as required by LR7.3(b). Therefore, this court should summarily deny Petitioner’s motion to compel the NC State Bar to provide its finding to her grievance against her former appellate attorney.

Additionally, Petitioner’s requested relief in her above-cited motion is not cognizable on
federal habeas review because it represents an attack on a proceeding collateral to detention and not to the detention itself. See Lawrence v. Branker, 517 F.3d 700, 717 (4th Cir.) (“Thus, even where there is some error in state post-conviction proceedings, a petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief because the assignment of error relating to those post-conviction proceedings represents an attack on a proceeding collateral to detention and not to the detention itself.”), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 868, 129 S. Ct. 162, 172 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2008)."

Oops, looks like somebody should have taken the bus over to NC State's library and done a little legal research. With friends like Sid, Crystal really doesn't need any enemies.

The state argues: " Petitioner is not in custody because of any proceeding before the North Carolina State Bar. Therefore, her motion to have this Court compel the North Carolina State Bar to provide its finding to her grievance against her former appellate attorney is not cognizable on federal habeas review and should be summarily denied."

Walt-in-Durham; March 31, 2017 at 7:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Walt.

Thanks for posting what you feel to be the relevant portions of the Responses of the State to Mangum's Motions. I appreciate that.

I am baffled, however, why you refuse to post a link to the State's Responses like you have done in the past. Is it because they are so weak? Hmmm. I'm sure that other commenters and visitors to this site would appreciate a link... but why be greedy. I am appreciative of what you have posted.; March 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, I think you should switch from crying towels to Oopsie Rolls based on all the mistakes you have made over the years.

http://healthyrecipesblogs.com/2013/07/23/oopsie-rolls/; March 31, 2017 at 8:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"I am baffled, however, why you refuse to post a link to the State's Responses like you have done in the past. Is it because they are so weak? Hmmm. I'm sure that other commenters and visitors to this site would appreciate a link... but why be greedy. I am appreciative of what you have posted."

Sidney, the only thing you have said here is that you are baffled. You have been baffled about everything since you started your blog.; March 31, 2017 at 8:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid ... if you are baffled by it, and think they'd be relevant, why don't you post them yourself?; March 31, 2017 at 11:45 AM
A Lawyer said...: I am baffled, however, why you refuse to post a link to the State's Responses like you have done in the past. Is it because they are so weak? Hmmm.

The excerpts Walt posted show that the State's responses are extremely strong. I predict all three motions will be denied, and that the habeas petition itself will be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.; March 31, 2017 at 12:42 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid ... if you are baffled by it, and think they'd be relevant, why don't you post them yourself?

If I had access to the Respondent's Response, I would post it the link. Walt has the link... maybe A Lawyer does, as well. Since I am not party to this legal matter, the clerk of court will not grace me with a copy.; March 31, 2017 at 5:32 PM
A Lawyer said...: maybe A Lawyer does, as well.

Sorry, I don't.

Since I am not party to this legal matter, the clerk of court will not grace me with a copy.

You could get a Pacer subscription.
I'd use mine, but my firm requires me to list a client charge if I use Pacer.; March 31, 2017 at 8:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Sid.; April 1, 2017 at 4:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Where

is

the

little

man?; April 1, 2017 at 5:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
maybe A Lawyer does, as well.

Sorry, I don't.

Since I am not party to this legal matter, the clerk of court will not grace me with a copy.

You could get a Pacer subscription.
I'd use mine, but my firm requires me to list a client charge if I use Pacer.

Hey, A Lawyer.

Thanks anyway. I wouldn't want you to get fired.; April 1, 2017 at 5:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 275 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 2 weeks and 3 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 17 days since the Ides of March 2017, 46 days since February 14, 2017, 91 days since the end of 2016, 274 days since the end of June 2016, 342 days since April 24, 2016, 382 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,225 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,576 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,254 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 1, 2017 at 6:06 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid:

You have 275 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 2 weeks and 3 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 17 days since the Ides of March 2017, 46 days since February 14, 2017, 91 days since the end of 2016, 274 days since the end of June 2016, 342 days since April 24, 2016, 382 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,225 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,576 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,254 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe.

As you can see, motions are being taken under consideration in Mangum's Habeas Corpus. Mangum has until April 17, 2017 to reply to the Response by the State. I imagine that her response will be filed sometime before that deadline.

Walt is very much concerned about the turn of events... so much that he is unwilling to provide a link to the State's latest Response. If I were you, Abe, I would be thinking about what color crying towel you want to order... the default color being Duke Blue Devil blue.; April 1, 2017 at 6:31 AM
Anonymous said...: How are you going to respond to the responses if you don't have access to them (since we know Mangum isn't actually preparing the responses)? Once you get them, will you post them? You should have access soon.

I really hope you don't lie to Crystal and pretend that any of these motions have a chance. They don't. You ruined her best chance at success.; April 1, 2017 at 7:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Ken Edwards is a coward. I expect that he will continue to make his occasional, inane posts but will do nothing to assist Crystal.; April 1, 2017 at 7:51 AM
A Lawyer said...: f I were you, Abe, I would be thinking about what color crying towel you want to order... the default color being Duke Blue Devil blue.

Someone's going to need a crying towel when the habeas is decided, but I predict it's going to be Dr. Harr.; April 1, 2017 at 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, Abe.

As you can see, motions are being taken under consideration in Mangum's Habeas Corpus. Mangum has until April 17, 2017 to reply to the Response by the State. I imagine that her response will be filed sometime before that deadline.

Walt is very much concerned about the turn of events... so much that he is unwilling to provide a link to the State's latest Response. If I were you, Abe, I would be thinking about what color crying towel you want to order... the default color being Duke Blue Devil blue."

Only another manifestation of Sidney's delusional megalomania.; April 1, 2017 at 8:54 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Ken Edwards is a coward. I expect that he will continue to make his occasional, inane posts but will do nothing to assist Crystal"...........................Tell us who you are?; April 1, 2017 at 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: "Anonymous said: "Ken Edwards is a coward. I expect that he will continue to make his occasional, inane posts but will do nothing to assist Crystal"...........................Tell us who you are?"

Someone who has you pegged to a T.; April 1, 2017 at 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"Walt is very much concerned about the turn of events... so much that he is unwilling to provide a link to the State's latest Response. If I were you, Abe, I would be thinking about what color crying towel you want to order... the default color being Duke Blue Devil blue."

I am going to carry on with my countdown anyway. Mangum isn't even half way thru her sentence. She still has a lot of time left to serve and you still have many failed predictions to make. Someone has to keep track of such things and it might as well be me.

When Mangum's/your habeas petition fails (as it most certainly will), feel free to requisition a Duke blue crying towel for your own personal use.

Also, what "turn of events" are you talking about, and why do you think Walt is concerned about it?

Walt, do you have any idea what Sid is talking about? Has there been a recent turn of events in Mangum's case that has you concerned?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 1, 2017 at 3:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Kenny; April 1, 2017 at 6:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney said:

"Since I am not party to this legal matter, the clerk of court will not grace me with a copy."

I assume Mangum will get copies and you can get them from her, correct?; April 1, 2017 at 7:52 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Someone who has you pegged to a T."............................. Someone eh? So, why are you so afraid to tell us who you are?; April 1, 2017 at 8:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 274 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 2 weeks and 4 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 18 days since the Ides of March 2017, 47 days since February 14, 2017, 92 days since the end of 2016, 275 days since the end of June 2016, 343 days since April 24, 2016, 383 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,226 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,577 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,253 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 2, 2017 at 2:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "Someone who has you pegged to a T."............................. Someone eh? So, why are you so afraid to tell us who you are?"

How about you first explain why Crystal lied about being raped. There is no evidence Crystal ever told the truth about being raped.; April 2, 2017 at 2:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Remember you are asserting Crystal told the truth. It is your obligation to prove she told the truth. No one has any obligation to prove she lied.; April 2, 2017 at 4:22 AM
Walt said...: Sid,

I won't link documents available on PACER because I'm not going to do your work for you. You can buy your own PACER account or you can scan in documents and post them yourself. I've decided to stop doing your work for you. Instead, I"m going to read and post relevant portions of the documents and comment on them.

As to the weakness of the state's response, you are quite wrong. As always. It is you who failed Crystal by not citing to relevant authority. You failed to go to the NC State Hill Library and use its excellent collection of legal authorities. Not me. I take a few seconds to look through the law library and find things. While I am trained, and you are clearly not, I got that training in one class in law school. It's not exactly rocket science. Every first year law student learns very quickly where to find case law and statutes. In fact, we teach paralegals to do this. It's not even a graduate level course. So, I think someone with an M.D. should be able to train himself to find cases and statutes, especially someone who has wasted so much bandwidth whining about lack of access to a law library.

I think it is important though to remind you of Clerk Burbaker's letter of February 27 to Crystal which reads in relevant part: "You are reminded that affidavits must be made on personal knowledge, contain facts admissible in evidence and be made by one shown to be competent to testify." I'm sure Crystal has shared that with you. I know you don't have any respect for the law or those who practice it, but Brubaker is correct. Your affidavits need to be from those who have personal knowledge and clearly show that the affiant is competent to testify. Your medical ramblings while they were once interesting show two things. First, you have no first hand knowledge. You did not treat the patient, you never ever even saw him. And second, because you are not licensed to practice medicine, you are not competent to testify as an expert. Of course, you failed in even the most elementary task of an advocate. You didn't put your thoughts in the form of an affidavit. Truly, with friends like you, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham; April 2, 2017 at 5:18 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:22 AM wrote: "Remember you are asserting Crystal told the truth. It is your obligation to prove she told the truth. No one has any obligation to prove she lied."

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

Walt-in-Durham; April 2, 2017 at 5:20 AM
kenhyderal said...: And, I suppose the State has no obligation to prove that Daye lied. B.t.w. one can lie by omission. An adequate defense, in my mind, should have consisted of Crystal's attorneys offering alternate explanations for the evidence found at the scene. Something Dr. Harr has, very successfully, done here. Then, it would have come down to a "he said she said" which, by rights, should favor the accused.; April 2, 2017 at 9:14 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny,

Mangum's decision to testify effectively prevented the defense from offering any other alternative explanations. To do so would have been to tell the jury that Mangum was lying when she testified and that her testimony should be disregarded. Once Mangum decided to testify (against the sound advice of her lawyer), the defense was stuck with her testimony as the defense's version of what happened on the day Mr. Daye was stabbed.

Unfortunately, Mangum's story that was contradicted by the physical evidence and she was not credible to the jurors (which surprises no one but you and Sid). Stuck between the hearsay declarations of Daye and Mangum's story, the jurors chose to believe the state's version of the events, which was supported by the evidence as well as Mr. Daye's statement (which was itself consistent with the physical evidence).

At some point Mangum needs to accept responsibility for the many, many poor decisions she made that resulted in Mr. Daye's death, her conviction, her unnecessarily long prison sentence and the failure of her appeals and subsequent attempts at post conviction relief.

What happened to Mangum isn't the result of a far reaching conspiracy involving numerous people at all levels of state and local government and Duke University; it is the direct result of Mangum's own poor judgment and bad decisions. These are traits Mangum has demonstrated throughout her life and seem to have escalated to and culminated with the stabbing of Mr. Daye and her subsequent trial and conviction.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 2, 2017 at 9:33 AM
Anonymous said...: kenny whined:

"And, I suppose the State has no obligation to prove that Daye lied."

The State had no obligation to prove that Daye lied, just as they had no obligation to prove that Mangum lied. What they had was an obligation to make sure there was probable cause (a) that a crime had been committed and (b) the defendant(s) committed it. There was probable cause in the case against Mangum. There was no probable cause in Mangum's false rape claim. Indeed, upon examination of Mangum's claims and the myriad, oftentimes contradictory stories she told, her ever changing timeline and the physical evidence, that AG concluded she lied about being raped. That is why the AG took the extraordinary step of making a declaration of actual innocence with respect to the falsely accused defendants.

But you know this already, you silly troll.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 2, 2017 at 9:41 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Is there some way we can get you to stop whining?; April 2, 2017 at 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"And, I suppose the State has no obligation to prove that Daye lied."

How would you establish that Reginald Daye lied about anything? He obviously told the truth that Crystal stabbed him.

"B.t.w. one can lie by omission. An adequate defense, in my mind, should have consisted of Crystal's attorneys offering alternate explanations for the evidence found at the scene."

First presumes a fact not in evidence, that you have a mind. If I am correct the Defense attorneys have to do more than present alternate explanations. They have to establish the credibility of said alternative explanations. To put it another way, they can not just present alternative facts but establish that the alternative facts are the REAL facts. Have the defense present alternative facts? Very Trumpian of you.

"Something Dr. Harr has, very successfully, done here."

So Sidney wanted to present alternative facts to the court. Very Trumpian of Sidney.

"Then, it would have come down to a "he said she said" which, by rights, should favor the accused."

No it wouldn't, not unless the Defense could establish that what they presented were the facts.

Once again Kenny tries to bullshit his way around and through facts which do not please him, this time to get his favorite murderess a pass for her crime.; April 2, 2017 at 10:41 AM
Anonymous said...: To Ken Edwards:

I am the egg man
They are the egg men
I am the walrus
Goo goo g'joob; April 2, 2017 at 10:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, your comment at April 2, 2017 at 9:14 AM was evasive.

You are ducking the issue raised, why was there no evidence Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped.; April 2, 2017 at 1:47 PM
kenhyderal said...: Abe said: "Unfortunately, Mangum's story that was contradicted by the physical evidence"..............................Nothing that was substantial. Coggins-Franks tripped Crystal up on inconsequential details about time and positioning during her traumatic ordeal. Details that no one involved in a such violent and fluid confrontation, in a small apartment and, that occurred months before, would remember, millisecond by millisecond. Then she labeled any inconsistencies as lies. This was a prosecutor who had months of preparation to coincide the evidence found with a version of the attack favorable to Daye, as improbable as that was. People's experience and common sense does not support the idea that a violent and enraged drunk, suddenly sobering up, would come to the realization that he was about to kill Crystal and needed to break off his attack and flee the scene.; April 2, 2017 at 3:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Abe said: "Unfortunately, Mangum's story that was contradicted by the physical evidence"..............................Nothing that was substantial."

There was a substantial case against crystal.

"Coggins-Franks tripped Crystal up on inconsequential details about time and positioning during her traumatic ordeal."

No she didn't.

"Details that no one involved in a such violent and fluid confrontation, in a small apartment and, that occurred months before, would remember, millisecond by millisecond."

You miss the fact that Crystal was trying to beat a murder rap, which is why she was supposedly confused. She was making up as she went along and tripped herself up.

"Then she labeled any inconsistencies as lies."

Because they were lies. You forget that Crystal's track record is a record of lies.

"This was a prosecutor who had months of preparation to coincide the evidence found with a version of the attack favorable to Daye, as improbable as that was."

The evidence indicated Crystal stabbed Reginald Daye, in a way which was not self defense, and, I say again, Crystal was trying to get a pass for murder. She was not a disinterested party. She had a motive to lie.

"People's experience and common sense does not support the idea that a violent and enraged drunk, suddenly sobering up, would come to the realization that he was about to kill Crystal and needed to break off his attack and flee the scene"

As your agenda is trying to get your favorite murderess a pass for her crimes. You are someone totally unfamiliar with "people's experience and common sense". e.g. hat there is no evidence Crystal told the truth when she said she had been raped means she lied; you keep insisting she had been raped.; April 2, 2017 at 3:52 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny alleged that the prosecutor argued that Daye "[came] to the realization that he was about to kill Crystal and needed to break off his attack and flee the scene'.

Did the prosecutor really argue that Daye tried to "flee the scene" before Crystal stabbed him? I thought the scenario was that Daye broke off the attack and told Crystal to get out of the apartment. (He was so insanely jealous that he didn't want to live with a woman who he believed went on paid dates with other men.) He was walking away (not fleeing).

In other words, if Daye kicked them out of his apartment, she and her children would be homeless once again. That was when Crystal grabbed a knife and stabbed him.

Sidney, can you post the transcript to the trial?

If Kenny is correct, it demonstrates that the prosecutor's argument is weak. If the prosecutor did not make that argument, then Kenny is making a straw man argument. The problem is that Kenny has no credibility, and no one believes anything he says. The transcript could answer that question.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; April 2, 2017 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 273 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 2 weeks and 5 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 19 days since the Ides of March 2017, 48 days since February 14, 2017, 93 days since the end of 2016, 276 days since the end of June 2016, 344 days since April 24, 2016, 384 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,227 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,578 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,252 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 3, 2017 at 4:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid,

I won't link documents available on PACER because I'm not going to do your work for you. You can buy your own PACER account or you can scan in documents and post them yourself. I've decided to stop doing your work for you. Instead, I"m going to read and post relevant portions of the documents and comment on them.

As to the weakness of the state's response, you are quite wrong. As always. It is you who failed Crystal by not citing to relevant authority. You failed to go to the NC State Hill Library and use its excellent collection of legal authorities. Not me. I take a few seconds to look through the law library and find things. While I am trained, and you are clearly not, I got that training in one class in law school. It's not exactly rocket science. Every first year law student learns very quickly where to find case law and statutes. In fact, we teach paralegals to do this. It's not even a graduate level course. So, I think someone with an M.D. should be able to train himself to find cases and statutes, especially someone who has wasted so much bandwidth whining about lack of access to a law library.

I think it is important though to remind you of Clerk Burbaker's letter of February 27 to Crystal which reads in relevant part: "You are reminded that affidavits must be made on personal knowledge, contain facts admissible in evidence and be made by one shown to be competent to testify." I'm sure Crystal has shared that with you. I know you don't have any respect for the law or those who practice it, but Brubaker is correct. Your affidavits need to be from those who have personal knowledge and clearly show that the affiant is competent to testify. Your medical ramblings while they were once interesting show two things. First, you have no first hand knowledge. You did not treat the patient, you never ever even saw him. And second, because you are not licensed to practice medicine, you are not competent to testify as an expert. Of course, you failed in even the most elementary task of an advocate. You didn't put your thoughts in the form of an affidavit. Truly, with friends like you, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

Hah... Shirley you jest. Posting a link to the State's Response is not really doing my work. Let's face it -- the reasons you don't want to post the link are: 1) The Response by the State is extremely weak and embarrassing; and 2) You do not want to do anything that might allegedly help me with Crystal's reply.

Everybody knows those are the true reasons you won't post the link... you're not fooling anyone. You know, as well as I, that if you posted the link, then I would be able to see the State's pathetic excuse for a response immediately... instead of waiting for Crystal to get the Response mailed to her, and then for her to mail the Response to me... which could take up to a week or more. So your refusal to post a link (a simple matter taking mere seconds) is for the explicit purpose of hampering any supposed attempts for me to assist her. I understand this... like everyone else.

But, as I stated previously, I am grateful for any crumbs of information from the State Response that you are willing to post.; April 3, 2017 at 5:49 AM
Anonymous said...: sidney Harr:

"Hey, Walt.

Hah... Shirley you jest. Posting a link to the State's Response is not really doing my work. Let's face it -- the reasons you don't want to post the link are: 1) The Response by the State is extremely weak and embarrassing; and 2) You do not want to do anything that might allegedly help me with Crystal's reply.

Everybody knows those are the true reasons you won't post the link... you're not fooling anyone. You know, as well as I, that if you posted the link, then I would be able to see the State's pathetic excuse for a response immediately... instead of waiting for Crystal to get the Response mailed to her, and then for her to mail the Response to me... which could take up to a week or more. So your refusal to post a link (a simple matter taking mere seconds) is for the explicit purpose of hampering any supposed attempts for me to assist her. I understand this... like everyone else.

But, as I stated previously, I am grateful for any crumbs of information from the State Response that you are willing to post."

Totally irrelevant statement as Crystal's petition is what is so weak and the State's response is what is strong.

Like Kenhyderal Sidney is trying to bullshit his way around and through facts which do not support his delusional megalomania.; April 3, 2017 at 5:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"[Walt's] refusal to post a link (a simple matter taking mere seconds) is for the explicit purpose of hampering any supposed attempts for me to assist her."

Presumes a fact not in evidence, that Sidney is trying to help Crystal. When has Sidney eveer helped Crystal. She is in jail partly because of Sidney's attempts to "help" her.; April 3, 2017 at 6:01 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "2) You do not want to do anything that might allegedly help me with Crystal's reply."

That's my point, exactly. You have continuously refused to take into account anything I have written. You have denigrated my profession. You have made unfounded and ridiculous accusations against Judges, Magistrates and other lawyers some of whom I know personally. You have utterly refused to learn. So, I am not about to do anything to help you. You have abused the system of justice to aggrandize yourself. What I will do is point out the glaring deficiencies of your frivolous vexatious pleadings. You deserve nothing more.

Walt-in-Durham; April 3, 2017 at 6:39 AM
A Lawyer said...: The Response by the State is extremely weak and embarrassing;

Even the brief excerpts posted by Walt show that the State's response is anything but weak.; April 3, 2017 at 7:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt said: "aggrandize"

What a great word. Learned something today!; April 3, 2017 at 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Sidney:

YUour post of April 3, 2017 at 5:49 AM is reminiscent of the boasts you were making when the State Bar called you out for practicing law without a license. You promised you would dazzle the Bar with your brilliance.You didn't display any kind of brilliance on that occasion now, didyou.; April 3, 2017 at 2:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny

Who's

your

daddy?; April 4, 2017 at 3:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 272 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 2 weeks and 6 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 20 days since the Ides of March 2017, 49 days since February 14, 2017, 94 days since the end of 2016, 277 days since the end of June 2016, 345 days since April 24, 2016, 385 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,228 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,579 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,251 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 4, 2017 at 3:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Hey Sidney:

YUour post of April 3, 2017 at 5:49 AM is reminiscent of the boasts you were making when the State Bar called you out for practicing law without a license. You promised you would dazzle the Bar with your brilliance.You didn't display any kind of brilliance on that occasion now, didyou

Actually, I was no more practicing law years ago than I am today. Merely acting as a scribe and a courier would hardly be considered by a reasonable person to be practicing law.

Also, I would hardly consider my April 3rd comment to be boasting.; April 4, 2017 at 5:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "2) You do not want to do anything that might allegedly help me with Crystal's reply."

That's my point, exactly. You have continuously refused to take into account anything I have written. You have denigrated my profession. You have made unfounded and ridiculous accusations against Judges, Magistrates and other lawyers some of whom I know personally. You have utterly refused to learn. So, I am not about to do anything to help you. You have abused the system of justice to aggrandize yourself. What I will do is point out the glaring deficiencies of your frivolous vexatious pleadings. You deserve nothing more.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

I do not want you to take my comments personally, but I think you would agree that the legal system in North Carolina and the country is far from perfect... and I am doing nothing more, in my advocacy for Crystal Mangum, than pointing them out. Unfortunately for Crystal, her representation by legal professionals has been inept at best, and traitorous at worst.

My comments, sharlogs, and other postings are not meant in a malicious vein, but are made for the purpose of securing justice for Crystal Mangum in a politicized legal system that is stacked against her. I apologize to you for any perceived offenses to your profession or your colleagues, but I don't regret my efforts in seeking justice on Crystal's behalf.

Again, I do find value in your comments despite my refusal to heed all of your suggestions. Your input on the comment section makes this blog site all the better, and I appreciate it. That's why a link to the Response of the State would not only allegedly help me help Crystal, but it would be to the benefit of all of the readers, visitors, and commenters to this blog site.; April 4, 2017 at 5:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Actually, I was no more practicing law years ago than I am today. Merely acting as a scribe and a courier would hardly be considered by a reasonable person to be practicing law."

As you are not a reasonable person, this statement is irrelevant. You were practicing law without a license.

"Also, I would hardly consider my April 3rd comment to be boasting."

I wouldn't either. I would consider it EMPTY boasting-you can't put your money where your mouth is.; April 4, 2017 at 6:46 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I do not want you to take my comments personally, but I think you would agree that the legal system in North Carolina and the country is far from perfect..."

As it is a human institution, yes, our legal system is not perfect, but it is very good and your criticisms have been unfair, unwarranted and abusive of those who practice in it.

"and I am doing nothing more, in my advocacy for Crystal Mangum,"

Advocating for someone is the practice of law. You lack a law license. You lack any training, you have no inclination to learn, and you you have shown nothing but disrespect for the law and those who practice it.

"Unfortunately for Crystal, her representation by legal professionals has been inept at best, and traitorous at worst."

No, it has not. You lack the training, the intellect or even the intellectual curiosity to figure that out.

"My comments, sharlogs, and other postings are not meant in a malicious vein,..."

I have no way of knowing if that statement is true or not, but there is a substantial amount of evidence that you do have a malicious intent. Certainly your pleadings have been malicious. You have repeatedly berated Judges and Magistrates who were correctly applying the law. That is utterly unacceptable conduct on your behalf. You have repeatedly filed the same lawsuit when you were told it was frivolous. That is malicious conduct. Even in the post I am quoting, you are maligning practitioners and my profession. Malice? I think there is ample proof.

"but are made for the purpose of securing justice for Crystal Mangum in a politicized legal system that is stacked against her."

No. The system is not politicized, nor is it stacked against her. You have argued for injustice all along. You have sought to ignore the law and give Crystal special treatment reserved, only for her.

"I apologize to you for any perceived offenses to your profession or your colleagues, but I don't regret my efforts in seeking justice on Crystal's behalf."

That is not an apology. An apology evidences a common understanding of the exact nature and substance of the wrong, takes accountability, acknowledges the pain or embarrassment (in this case, you have not actually caused me any pain as I could care less what a failed M.D. with no legal training, experience or inclination to learn says or thinks, but you have insulted my profession and its lawyers and judges), expresses a judgment about the offense, expresses genuine regret, and indicates future action.

You expressly do not evidence an understanding of your offense. You take no accountability for it, you make no expression of regret and you indicate that you will not change course in the future. That is not an apology, but further insult.

" That's why a link to the Response of the State would not only allegedly help me help Crystal, but it would be to the benefit of all of the readers, visitors, and commenters to this blog site."

I will not help you practice law without a license. I think all our readers got all the benefit there is to get from the excerpted portions of the state's reply brief. Those excerpts show clearly that your motions have no basis in law and failed to even argue the law that exists.

Walt-in-Durham; April 4, 2017 at 6:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, Walt.

I do not want you to take my comments personally, but I think you would agree that the legal system in North Carolina and the country is far from perfect... and I am doing nothing more, in my advocacy for Crystal Mangum, than pointing them out. Unfortunately for Crystal, her representation by legal professionals has been inept at best, and traitorous at worst."

From not Walt: the legal system is not perfect. However the way you try to manipulate the system only takes it farther away from perfection, your attempts to get your favorite murderess a pass for her crimes because she is black. And you are totally lacking in the education or expertise to declare the legal system traitorous.

"My comments, sharlogs, and other postings are not meant in a malicious vein, but are made for the purpose of securing justice for Crystal Mangum in a politicized legal system that is stacked against her. I apologize to you for any perceived offenses to your profession or your colleagues, but I don't regret my efforts in seeking justice on Crystal's behalf."

Trying to paint innocent men guilty of rape which never happened, allegations made by a lying false accuser, is extremely malicious. Calling the murder of an innocent child by a drug dealer just an unfortunate accident is highly and intensely vicious. And seeking to get a murderess a pass for her crimes is anything but justice.

"Again, I do find value in your comments despite my refusal to heed all of your suggestions. Your input on the comment section makes this blog site all the better, and I appreciate it. That's why a link to the Response of the State would not only allegedly help me help Crystal, but it would be to the benefit of all of the readers, visitors, and commenters to this blog site."

Accusing Walt of trying to conceal what is happening regarding Crystal's latest legal maneuvers, because he doesn't agree with you that Crystal has a strong case, IS rather malicious.; April 4, 2017 at 6:59 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 4, 2017 at 9:05 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "No. The system is not politicized, nor is it stacked against her".............This remark is laughable. Even President Trump disagrees with it. Lets see now: excessive plea bargains, Citizens United, elected Judges, excessive incarceration, private gaols, racial disparity in sentencing and incarceration, underpaid and overworked public defenders who lack the time and resources to adequately mount an effective case. Crystal is a poor minority woman and in the US, by definition, the system is stacked against her. Walt is defending the indefensible.; April 4, 2017 at 9:07 AM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Please stop whining.; April 4, 2017 at 9:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Walt said: "No. The system is not politicized, nor is it stacked against her".............This remark is laughable. Even President Trump disagrees with it. Lets see now: excessive plea bargains, Citizens United, elected Judges, excessive incarceration, private gaols, racial disparity in sentencing and incarceration, underpaid and overworked public defenders who lack the time and resources to adequately mount an effective case. Crystal is a poor minority woman and in the US, by definition, the system is stacked against her. Walt is defending the indefensible. "

Kenhyderal spends a great deal of his time on this blog proclaiming that innocent men are guilty of raping Crystal, even though there is zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped(and Kenny hasn't produced any evidence). And Kenny says that Walt is trying to defend the indefensible. Oh come now.; April 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, considering your repeated posts about innocent men should be convicted of and imprisoned for a rape which never happened, you are just as malicious and vicious as Sidney.; April 4, 2017 at 10:54 AM
A Lawyer said...: underpaid and overworked public defenders who lack the time and resources to adequately mount an effective case

True in some parts of the U.S. (e.g., Texas), less so in others (e.g., California). I do not have sufficient knowledge to know if it's true in North Carolina. But the worst PD would not have sabotaged Mangum's case as badly as Dr. Harr has done (not intentionally, I'm sure, but out of ignorance of the law and an arrogant refusal to do basic legal research). Even if Mangum were innocent, and even if she had good constitutional claims that would entitle her to release on habeas corpus, the federal court cannot consider those claims because Mangum failed to "exhaust" them by not including them in her original state-court appeal or in her MAR (which were ghost-written for her by Dr. Harr).; April 4, 2017 at 11:29 AM
JSwift said...: A Lawyer stated: the federal court cannot consider those claims because Mangum failed to "exhaust" them by not including them in her original state-court appeal or in her MAR (which were ghost-written for her by Dr. Harr).

I thought that Sidney improperly attempted to include many of these claims in the pro se appeal he drafted for Magnum. Because the matters he raised in that appeal were not questions of law raised in the original trial, the claims were not appropriate for an appeal and were not considered.

I thought that some of these claims arguably could have been raised in an MAR. Although I know that an MAR was filed in Judge Hudson's court, which he dismissed, Sidney has steadfastly refused to post the MAR or the dismissal , so we do not know what was included in it or the specific reasons for its dismissal.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; April 4, 2017 at 12:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney hasn't done anything right in this case from the beginning - unless you believe his goal was to see Mangum convicted.

Sid, if Crystal likes you so much, why didn't she want you to participate in the trial? Just like with Dr. Roberts, it was clear that if Crystal insisted that a witness be called, they would be. She never asked for you to be called from everything I saw. Why not?; April 4, 2017 at 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: To call women like Crystal Mangum the dregs of society would be an insult to dregs.; April 4, 2017 at 11:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man?; April 5, 2017 at 3:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 271 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 3 weeks since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 21 days since the Ides of March 2017, 50 days since February 14, 2017, 95 days since the end of 2016, 278 days since the end of June 2016, 346 days since April 24, 2016, 386 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,229 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,580 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,250 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 5, 2017 at 3:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sidney hasn't done anything right in this case from the beginning - unless you believe his goal was to see Mangum convicted.

Sid, if Crystal likes you so much, why didn't she want you to participate in the trial? Just like with Dr. Roberts, it was clear that if Crystal insisted that a witness be called, they would be. She never asked for you to be called from everything I saw. Why not?

It was Crystal's defense attorneys who sabotaged her case. Only Woody Vann met with me, and from our approximately twenty minute discussion, he sought the services of Dr. Roberts. Of course, Mr. Vann also had an exculpatory electric telecommunication which was kept hidden from all and which was never investigated.

Meier, Mangum's trial attorney, determined who would be called to testify and Meier did not put me on that list. If he would've, the jurors would've gotten an ear-full.; April 5, 2017 at 5:13 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: JSwift said...
A Lawyer stated: the federal court cannot consider those claims because Mangum failed to "exhaust" them by not including them in her original state-court appeal or in her MAR (which were ghost-written for her by Dr. Harr).

I thought that Sidney improperly attempted to include many of these claims in the pro se appeal he drafted for Magnum. Because the matters he raised in that appeal were not questions of law raised in the original trial, the claims were not appropriate for an appeal and were not considered.

I thought that some of these claims arguably could have been raised in an MAR. Although I know that an MAR was filed in Judge Hudson's court, which he dismissed, Sidney has steadfastly refused to post the MAR or the dismissal , so we do not know what was included in it or the specific reasons for its dismissal.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Hey, JSwift.

Don't have the MAR that Judge Hudson denied. It was a curious event, as his denial, I believe, came more than a year after it was filed... and was in response to a letter that Crystal wrote to Hudson.; April 5, 2017 at 5:18 AM
Walt said...: A Lawyer wrote: " I do not have sufficient knowledge to know if it's true in North Carolina."

North Carolina public defenders work on the same pay scale as District Attorneys and ADAs. There are equal numbers of ADAs and Assistant Public Defenders. The only difference at the DA level and the Public Defender level is the DA has to stand for election every four years. The Public Defender of each judicial district is a permanent employee of the Administrative office of Courts.

"But the worst PD would not have sabotaged Mangum's case as badly as Dr. Harr has done (not intentionally, I'm sure, but out of ignorance of the law and an arrogant refusal to do basic legal research). Even if Mangum were innocent, and even if she had good constitutional claims that would entitle her to release on habeas corpus, the federal court cannot consider those claims because Mangum failed to "exhaust" them by not including them in her original state-court appeal or in her MAR (which were ghost-written for her by Dr. Harr)."

True that, though I no longer am sure of Sid's lack if intention. His record of refusing to learn is getting longer and longer. Never the less, Sid did fail Mangum again by not exhausting her claims in his ghost written appeal. Worse, he convinced her to withdraw the one claim that had merit thus not exhausting it as well.

Walt-in-Durham; April 5, 2017 at 6:24 AM
Walt said...: John D. Smith wrote: "Sidney has steadfastly refused to post the MAR or the dismissal , so we do not know what was included in it or the specific reasons for its dismissal."

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

Walt-in-Durham; April 5, 2017 at 6:26 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Meier, Mangum's trial attorney, determined who would be called to testify and Meier did not put me on that list. If he would've, the jurors would've gotten an ear-full."

What part of you are not competent to testify don't you understand? Are you licensed in North Carolina? If so, did you treat Daye? If you did not treat Daye, did you perform an autopsy on him? If not, you are not a fact witness. You cannot testify.

Or, are you an expert within the meaning of the rule on expert testimony which would enable you to offer an opinion? Again, are you licensed in North Carolina to practice medicine? Have you testified before and found by another court to be an expert? Are you familiar with the science and medicine of forensic pathology? As you are not, you cannot testify as an expert. Thus no competent lawyer, let alone a Judge would ever allow you to testify.

Again, you seek injustice in favor of Crystal. Not justice.

Walt-in-Durham; April 5, 2017 at 6:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"
It was Crystal's defense attorneys who sabotaged her case. Only Woody Vann met with me, and from our approximately twenty minute discussion, he sought the services of Dr. Roberts. Of course, Mr. Vann also had an exculpatory electric telecommunication which was kept hidden from all and which was never investigated."

How about you publish said "exculpatory electric communication".

"Meier, Mangum's trial attorney, determined who would be called to testify and Meier did not put me on that list. If he would've, the jurors would've gotten an ear-full."

Yes the jurots would have gotten an earful, an earful of how incompetent, how delusional, how megalomaniacal, how malicious you are.; April 5, 2017 at 7:55 AM
Anonymous said...: But - Mangm could have insisted. You refused to even show up for the trial, which tells me the choice for your lack of participation was Crystal's. Did she ask them to consult with you and they refused, or did she not ask?; April 5, 2017 at 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Sid; April 6, 2017 at 3:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 270 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 3 weeks and 1 day since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 22 days since the Ides of March 2017, 51 days since February 14, 2017, 96 days since the end of 2016, 279 days since the end of June 2016, 347 days since April 24, 2016, 387 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,230 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,581 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,249 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 6, 2017 at 3:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 269 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 3 weeks and 2 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 23 days since the Ides of March 2017, 52 days since February 14, 2017, 97 days since the end of 2016, 280 days since the end of June 2016, 348 days since April 24, 2016, 388 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,231 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,582 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,248 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 7, 2017 at 3:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Abe; April 7, 2017 at 3:34 AM
Walt said...: I wonder if Sid or Kenny will weigh in on SB600? Here's a link for those interested: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2017&BillID=s600&submitButton=Go

Walt-in-Durham; April 7, 2017 at 2:15 PM
kenhyderal said...: Inapplicable to Crystal since there was no domestic violence perpetrated by her in defending herself against Daye, a deadly assaulter with murderous intent.; April 7, 2017 at 9:29 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny
I can't believe that even you think Reginald had any murderous intent.; April 7, 2017 at 9:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 268 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 3 weeks and 3 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 24 days since the Ides of March 2017, 53 days since February 14, 2017, 98 days since the end of 2016, 281 days since the end of June 2016, 349 days since April 24, 2016, 389 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,232 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,583 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,247 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 8, 2017 at 3:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

" Blogger kenhyderal said...

Inapplicable to Crystal since there was no domestic violence perpetrated by her in defending herself against Daye, a deadly assaulter with murderous intent."

Consider the source, Kenhyderal who has over the past 11 years provided zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped. Kenny's evidence is nothing more than wishful thinking motivated by his intense dislike of people who are better off and more accomplished than he is.; April 8, 2017 at 3:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, there was domestic violence in that apartment the domestic violence Crystal inflicted on Reginald Daye.; April 8, 2017 at 3:31 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
I wonder if Sid or Kenny will weigh in on SB600? Here's a link for those interested: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2017&BillID=s600&submitButton=Go

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

Took a quick gander at the bill as I am currently occupied with other important concerns regarding Crystal. Offhand, I am not amenable to any bill sponsored by Republicans, but especially conservative ones such as Chad Barefoot. That said, my initial impression is that I do not see how it would significantly impact the criminal legal system as opposed to laws already on the books. I'd have to give it much more study to give you a definitive opinion on it.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Do you have any feelings about it?; April 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
But - Mangm could have insisted. You refused to even show up for the trial, which tells me the choice for your lack of participation was Crystal's. Did she ask them to consult with you and they refused, or did she not ask?

Actually, after Scott Holmes took over representing Crystal, she pretty much put her trust in his hands and I was isolated from her as a result. When it became apparent that Crystal was going to be dismissive of my advice and assistance, I decided to stay away. After Meier was appointed, I was extremely alarmed after googling his background. But there was nothing I could do. It was clear to me that Crystal had thrown her lot in with her attorney Meier by the time trial rolled around, so I decided not to attend it.

Hope that answers your question.; April 8, 2017 at 5:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"
Actually, after Scott Holmes took over representing Crystal, she pretty much put her trust in his hands and I was isolated from her as a result. When it became apparent that Crystal was going to be dismissive of my advice and assistance, I decided to stay away. After Meier was appointed, I was extremely alarmed after googling his background. But there was nothing I could do. It was clear to me that Crystal had thrown her lot in with her attorney Meier by the time trial rolled around, so I decided not to attend it."

Your decision not to attend Crystal's trial was the only decision you ever made which actually benefited her.; April 8, 2017 at 5:41 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "I can't believe that even you think Reginald had any murderous intent"................................................................... It seems North Carolina is behind the curve in this respect. http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/103445/; April 8, 2017 at 8:36 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
This says absolutely nothing about Reginald's intent. You've been telling us Reginald grabbed Crysal by the hair, not throat. But I guess you're goood at changing your story.; April 8, 2017 at 8:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Whatever the intent - when he kicked in the door and drug her out by her hair, Crystal clearly would have had the right to stab him in self defense, if he had then held her down and started strangling her, as she said. However, if he then let her go, and turned to leave - and she ran into the other room, got a knife, and came back after Daye (as he testified, and as she had done in the past), she didn't.

Crystal claims Daye had no prior history of abuse or violence towards her (Sid originally claimed he did, he even said he sent her to the hospital the week earlier, but he has admitted he was mistaken), so she had no reason to be afraid of him but for that specific day/incident, and if he let her go, the right to self-defense ended.; April 8, 2017 at 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

Good job documenting the actual history of this case, and persisting in pursuit of justice - please convey that to Ms. Mangum for me. Thank you.

On another note begun above - is there a law (means) similar to how Ms. Cline was prosecuted that would hold the appropriate persons accountable for making a mockery of the justice system in this case? Like Judge Hudson answering for a letter of inquiry or complaint instead of the actual motion filed like is implied in your current sharlog? Or Ms. Peterson lying to the Appeal Judges and the Appeal Judges not reviewing the evidence enough to even note that Mr. Daye did not die three days later since he was placed on life support - implying that his life was still with him for at least another week. etc., etc., etc. I mean, these actions of corruption affect all and imply that all and justice itself are disrespected and made a mockery of. What are your thought on this matter?

Thank you.; April 8, 2017 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: I wonder if the justice system would actually start paying attention to the corruption in this state because, in large part, of duke and all its harmful public policies, social engineering that includes the prison state and corrupted political meddling for the benefit of the few 1 per-centers and their corrupted minions and brain washed (or terrified) 'leaders' - if the justice system mandated a Pro Se legal representation training and resource center for all unfortunates, including access for all incarcerated and the like, who must battle the nefarious & duke corrupted 'powers that be' in NC and find themselves fighting the overly corrupted and duke conflicted justice system itself without the aid of non-corrupted and non-conflicted legal assistance as guaranteed by law? All face that battle before they even begin to think about assisting in their own defense, with or without the aid of valid legal assistance. All are made a victim to the injustice and corruption of the system and what it produces.

I wonder if the true voices of the accused and of victims were even heard and heeded, if things would change for the better for all instead of just the few who benefit from the injustice and suffering of the many. I wonder if this type fair thinking and education and access to legal information, knowledge, and appropriate assistance and representation would ever be considered for one of the many well-funded social engineering research and implementation agendas in NC and USA.; April 8, 2017 at 11:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney and or Kenny or maybe both posting anonymously again trying to create the illusion that people support them.; April 8, 2017 at 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous April 8, 2017 at 11:33 AM

You presume a fact not in evidence, that Sidney can think.; April 8, 2017 at 12:33 PM
guiowen said...: Oh, don't worry. It's just Tinfoil again.; April 8, 2017 at 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: g ... i've already told you to stop copy and pasting posts that aren't even yours and then sitting there and trolling what you just posted.

seriously

get over yourself

troll doesn't even describe what you do any more g ... since you are seriously evil

DO NOT TROLL ME IN ANY WAY AT ALL AGAIN

thanks; April 8, 2017 at 4:18 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anonymous April 8, 2017 at 11:33 AM

You presume a fact not in evidence, that Sidney can think.

Hardy-Harr-Harr... so funny I almost forgot to laugh.; April 8, 2017 at 4:22 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

Good job documenting the actual history of this case, and persisting in pursuit of justice - please convey that to Ms. Mangum for me. Thank you.

On another note begun above - is there a law (means) similar to how Ms. Cline was prosecuted that would hold the appropriate persons accountable for making a mockery of the justice system in this case? Like Judge Hudson answering for a letter of inquiry or complaint instead of the actual motion filed like is implied in your current sharlog? Or Ms. Peterson lying to the Appeal Judges and the Appeal Judges not reviewing the evidence enough to even note that Mr. Daye did not die three days later since he was placed on life support - implying that his life was still with him for at least another week. etc., etc., etc. I mean, these actions of corruption affect all and imply that all and justice itself are disrespected and made a mockery of. What are your thought on this matter?

Thank you.

Thank you for the kind words... and I will relate your comments to Ms. Mangum.

Regarding Judge Hudson, his response to the MAR was bizarre, to say the least. It was as though a letter written by Mangum long after the MAR was filed somehow triggered his response. I have been very dismayed by his judicial acts when it comes to Ms. Mangum, especially in light of the fact that he has been fairly liberal with his rulings to protect the rights of defendants. I believe that Mangum's case is too political. Like others, he has learned from the example made of Mike Nifong.

I could address my concerns about his treatment of Mangum to the Judicial Standards Commission, but I do not believe that would generate attention or a fair outcome... in other words, it would be a waste of my time. I did however file a complaint with that group against Judge Ridgeway for withholding the 18-page document about Dr. Clay Nichols from Ms. Mangum, but it got little traction and was eventually ruled in his favor.

As far as Appellate Defense Attorney Ann Petersen goes, Mangum filed a Grievance with the State Bar more than two years ago... about November 2014. They have since wrote her several times asking for her patience and stating they were reviewing Mangum's complaint. I believe the last time Crystal wrote the State Bar to ask about the status of the Petersen Grievance was January 2017. Since that letter, she has received no reply.

Hope this addresses your questions.; April 8, 2017 at 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"
Thank you for the kind words... and I will relate your comments to Ms. Mangum.

Regarding Judge Hudson, his response to the MAR was bizarre, to say the least. It was as though a letter written by Mangum long after the MAR was filed somehow triggered his response. I have been very dismayed by his judicial acts when it comes to Ms. Mangum, especially in light of the fact that he has been fairly liberal with his rulings to protect the rights of defendants. I believe that Mangum's case is too political. Like others, he has learned from the example made of Mike Nifong.

I could address my concerns about his treatment of Mangum to the Judicial Standards Commission, but I do not believe that would generate attention or a fair outcome... in other words, it would be a waste of my time. I did however file a complaint with that group against Judge Ridgeway for withholding the 18-page document about Dr. Clay Nichols from Ms. Mangum, but it got little traction and was eventually ruled in his favor.

As far as Appellate Defense Attorney Ann Petersen goes, Mangum filed a Grievance with the State Bar more than two years ago... about November 2014. They have since wrote her several times asking for her patience and stating they were reviewing Mangum's complaint. I believe the last time Crystal wrote the State Bar to ask about the status of the Petersen Grievance was January 2017. Since that letter, she has received no reply.

Hope this addresses your questions."

This is just documentation of what a delusional abysmal failure you are.; April 8, 2017 at 4:52 PM
guiowen said...: Hey, it's Crybully Tinfoil!; April 8, 2017 at 5:07 PM
guiowen said...: Crybully cry!
You make Ken Edwards sigh!
He's old enough to know better!
So Crybully cry!; April 8, 2017 at 5:09 PM
Anonymous said...: FU G. You are an evil duke troll and evil duke troll does not begin to describe your evilness. Stop trolling me or I will ask dr. Harr to enforce the rules of his blog and ban you so that the rest of us can exist in a peaceful and troll free environment where we are not forced to put up will your constant trolling and bullying which you do like the evil duke troll you are and have always been.

Blah

Blah

Blah; April 8, 2017 at 5:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr or Kenny posting anonymously again.; April 8, 2017 at 5:42 PM
guiowen said...: Crybully cry!
You make Ken Edwards sigh!
He's old enough to know better!
So Crybully cry!; April 8, 2017 at 8:21 PM
guiowen said...: Hey, Crybully Tinfoil,
What you have to do is join forces with Sidney and Kennyboy. You can then sue Hudson, Petersen, Meier et al. See, also, whether you can locate the Fat Kilgo. I'm sure he has some really important information. (Maybe you can get Desconocido and Inconnu to help you in this.); April 8, 2017 at 8:27 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
You really should do something about Anonymous 5:17.; April 8, 2017 at 8:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 267 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 3 weeks and 4 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 25 days since the Ides of March 2017, 54 days since February 14, 2017, 99 days since the end of 2016, 282 days since the end of June 2016, 350 days since April 24, 2016, 390 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,233 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,584 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,246 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 9, 2017 at 6:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr

g is up to his old evil duke troll and cyberbully tricks and continues to troll and bully me and other posters like kenhyderal and he copies and pastes my old posts and then trolls me and then he acts like he is little miss manners and tries to trick you into thinking I am doing something wrong when all I want to do is see your latest sharlog and read comments by the non duke troll posters without being trolled and bullied by evil duke trolls like g who is the worst of the evil duke trolls and cyberbullies here at your blog; April 9, 2017 at 9:11 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
You eally should do something about the 9:11 poster.; April 9, 2017 at 10:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr or Kenhyderal again posting anonymously in order to create the illusion that people believe their delusions.; April 9, 2017 at 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...: g again posting in order to create the illusion that people believe his delusions.

blah

blah

blah; April 9, 2017 at 10:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Yet again either sidney or kenyderal post anonymously to conceal the facts that no one takes them seriously, that no one believes them.; April 9, 2017 at 11:35 AM
guiowen said...: Tinfoil,
Crybully cry!
You make Ken Edwards sigh:
He's old enough to know better.
So Crybully cry!; April 9, 2017 at 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: dr. harr the evil duke trolls at this website include g are cyberbullies and should be banned from your blog so that we can discuss the points you make in your posts which show that the durham system needs reform and is controlled by duke and the powers that be who only care about themselves and who have conflicts of interest.; April 9, 2017 at 3:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr or Kenhyderal again posting anonymously in order to create the illusion that people believe their delusions.; April 9, 2017 at 3:45 PM
A Lawyer said...: guiowen,
We got it. No need to keep repeating it.; April 9, 2017 at 8:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 266 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 3 weeks and 5 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 26 days since the Ides of March 2017, 55 days since February 14, 2017, 100 days since the end of 2016, 283 days since the end of June 2016, 351 days since April 24, 2016, 391 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,234 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,585 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,245 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 10, 2017 at 3:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Thank you a lawyer for calling out g the evil duke troll who continues to troll and cyberbully me on this blog and copies and pastes my posts and then trolls them like the insane evill duke troll that he is.; April 10, 2017 at 4:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney or Kenny putting up another anonymous post, in a futile attempt to convince the readership they have support.; April 10, 2017 at 4:42 AM
A Lawyer said...: Thank you a lawyer for calling out g the evil duke troll who continues to troll and cyberbully me on this blog and copies and pastes my posts and then trolls them like the insane evill duke troll that he is.

Your own repetitive, content-free remarks don't add anything to the discussion either.; April 10, 2017 at 8:06 AM
A Lawyer said...: dr. harr the evil duke trolls at this website include g are cyberbullies and should be banned from your blog so that we can discuss the points you make in your posts

I haven't seen you ever actually discuss any of the points in Dr. Harr's posts. What do you think of WRAL's motion to dismiss and Dr. Harr's response?; April 10, 2017 at 1:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 265 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 3 weeks and 6 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 27 days since the Ides of March 2017, 56 days since February 14, 2017, 101 days since the end of 2016, 284 days since the end of June 2016, 352 days since April 24, 2016, 392 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,235 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,586 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,244 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 11, 2017 at 4:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

On Monday, April 10, 2017, Crystal Mangum filed a response to the State's response to her three motions... 1) Motion to transfer to house arrest; 2) Motion to unseal 18-page document and have it produced; and 3) Motion to compel NC State Bar to rule on Mangum's 2014 Grievance against appellate defense attorney Ann Petersen.; April 11, 2017 at 11:24 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: As you were.; April 11, 2017 at 11:25 AM
Anonymous said...: And, Sid still won't post them.

But, we can be sure there was no legal basis cited by Sid (Crystal), and they will fail just like every other effort Sid has ever undertaken.; April 11, 2017 at 11:28 AM
A Lawyer said...: Motion to compel NC State Bar to rule on Mangum's 2014 Grievance against appellate defense attorney Ann Petersen.

Did Mangum name the State Bar as a defendant in her lawsuit and serve it with process? If not, she can't ask for any relief against it. It would be like me suing Walt in Durham to ask for an order that Sidney Harr pay me a million dollars.

You ask the Court for orders against the people you sued, not against people you didn't sue.; April 11, 2017 at 8:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 264 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 4 weeks since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 28 days since the Ides of March 2017, 57 days since February 14, 2017, 102 days since the end of 2016, 285 days since the end of June 2016, 353 days since April 24, 2016, 393 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,236 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,587 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,243 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 12, 2017 at 4:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Motion to compel NC State Bar to rule on Mangum's 2014 Grievance against appellate defense attorney Ann Petersen.

Did Mangum name the State Bar as a defendant in her lawsuit and serve it with process? If not, she can't ask for any relief against it. It would be like me suing Walt in Durham to ask for an order that Sidney Harr pay me a million dollars.

You ask the Court for orders against the people you sued, not against people you didn't sue.

Hey, A Lawyer.

Thanks for the info... however, since Crystal is not a lawyer and hasn't had any legal training she was probably unaware of that. Wish you were available to proofread her briefs.; April 12, 2017 at 5:31 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
And, Sid still won't post them.

But, we can be sure there was no legal basis cited by Sid (Crystal), and they will fail just like every other effort Sid has ever undertaken.

WRONG-O!!

As I have stated in the past, it takes a lot of time to post these briefs online. So, I spent the better part of yesterday preparing the images to post. Please cut me a little slack for not including the exhibits because that would really take a lot of time.

CLICK to access Habeas Corpus Motions; April 12, 2017 at 5:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney it is obvious you do not comprehend the issues. Your argument is, I am Sidney Harr and you must give me what I want, namely that my favorite murderess/false accuser be given a pass for her crimes.; April 12, 2017 at 5:55 AM
Anonymous said...: A Lawyer suggested that he sue me and ask for a judgment of $1,000,000 against Sid. Perhaps I should confess judgment and allow such an order to enter. Then, A Lawyer could send me a Notice to Right to Exempt, to which I could respond that none of Sid's property was exempt. He could then get an order for the Sheriff to seize all Sid's bank accounts and his personal property. Without money to pay his rent or a place to sleep we could render Sid homeless. Does that sound fair to Sid? It certainly seems like that's the way he wants to go with his motion to compel the Bar.

Walt-in-Durham; April 12, 2017 at 6:11 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
A Lawyer suggested that he sue me and ask for a judgment of $1,000,000 against Sid. Perhaps I should confess judgment and allow such an order to enter. Then, A Lawyer could send me a Notice to Right to Exempt, to which I could respond that none of Sid's property was exempt. He could then get an order for the Sheriff to seize all Sid's bank accounts and his personal property. Without money to pay his rent or a place to sleep we could render Sid homeless. Does that sound fair to Sid? It certainly seems like that's the way he wants to go with his motion to compel the Bar.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

The germane issues regarding the NC State Bar are these:
1) Does it have a duty to respond to all grievances?
2) Does it have the right to withhold its decisions? and
3) What is a reasonable length of time for a complicated grievance to result in a decision.

I submit that no grievance submitted to the NC State Bar has required more than two years of review before a decision was rendered.

Be interested in hearing your responses to the above questions.; April 12, 2017 at 7:09 AM
A Lawyer said...: Hey, Walt.

The germane issues regarding the NC State Bar are these:
1) Does it have a duty to respond to all grievances?
2) Does it have the right to withhold its decisions? and
3) What is a reasonable length of time for a complicated grievance to result in a decision.

Those issues are not "germane" to a lawsuit in which the State Bar is not a party. Walt and I explained that to you. Why are you changing the subject?; April 12, 2017 at 7:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, Walt.

The germane issues regarding the NC State Bar are these:
1) Does it have a duty to respond to all grievances?
2) Does it have the right to withhold its decisions? and
3) What is a reasonable length of time for a complicated grievance to result in a decision.

I submit that no grievance submitted to the NC State Bar has required more than two years of review before a decision was rendered.

Be interested in hearing your responses to the above questions."

Perhaps the issue is, does the complaining party have a legitimate grievance against some individual. Just because the grievance was filed of behalf of Crystal does not render it legitimate. Your attitude seems to be that a grievance filed on behalf of Crystal be declared legitimate. I would say such an attitude stems from your guilt presuming attitude during the Duke Rape Hoax, that the members of the Lacrosse team be presumed guilty even though there as no evidence Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped.; April 12, 2017 at 9:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey, A Lawyer.

Thanks for the info... however, since Crystal is not a lawyer and hasn't had any legal training she was probably unaware of that. Wish you were available to proofread her briefs.

Except that you were available Sid, and this has been explained to you repeatedly, and was also in the State's reply - so you are the problem. You refuse to learn.; April 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM
Anonymous said...: And, even though it's been explained repeatedly, Sid (Crystal) still claims the Larceny of Chose in Action had anything to do with Felony Murder.

Sid, are you really this unable to learn, or is this all just a sick joke?; April 12, 2017 at 11:59 AM
A Lawyer said...: Having now read the State's responses to Mangum's three motions and her replies, I fully expect all three motions to be denied.; April 12, 2017 at 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Well whipdedo a Lawyer.; April 12, 2017 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 4:05 PM:

Please go frack yourself.; April 12, 2017 at 4:13 PM
Anonymous said...: A Lawyer wrote: "Those issues are not "germane" to a lawsuit in which the State Bar is not a party."

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

"Why are you changing the subject?"

I noticed that too. Note Sid doesn't reply to my hypothetical's fairness. It seems he can't really address that point.

Walt-in-Durham; April 12, 2017 at 5:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 4:13 PM:

Why so angry?; April 12, 2017 at 7:02 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

"Hey, Walt.

The germane issues regarding the NC State Bar are these:
1) Does it have a duty to respond to all grievances?
2) Does it have the right to withhold its decisions? and
3) What is a reasonable length of time for a complicated grievance to result in a decision.

I submit that no grievance submitted to the NC State Bar has required more than two years of review before a decision was rendered.

Be interested in hearing your responses to the above questions."

Perhaps the issue is, does the complaining party have a legitimate grievance against some individual. Just because the grievance was filed of behalf of Crystal does not render it legitimate. Your attitude seems to be that a grievance filed on behalf of Crystal be declared legitimate. I would say such an attitude stems from your guilt presuming attitude during the Duke Rape Hoax, that the members of the Lacrosse team be presumed guilty even though there as no evidence Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped.

I do not know why you believe the grievance against Ann Petersen was filed by someone other than Crystal. Fact is that Crystal filed the grievance herself, and the State Bar wrote back to her acknowledging receipt of it. Furthermore, during the subsequent period (more than two years) the State Bar wrote Crystal stating that it was still reviewing her complaint and asking for her patience. The merits of her complaint are definitely not at issue.; April 13, 2017 at 4:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
A Lawyer wrote: "Those issues are not "germane" to a lawsuit in which the State Bar is not a party."

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

"Why are you changing the subject?"

I noticed that too. Note Sid doesn't reply to my hypothetical's fairness. It seems he can't really address that point.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

The problem with your hypothetical is that it is totally irrelevant and unrelated to the Motion against the State Bar filed by Crystal. The relevance of Mangum's case is that the State Bar has a duty to investigate grievances filed against attorneys... and in a reasonable time. For the Bar to take more than two years to investigate Mangum's complaint against Petersen is nonsensical and probably unheard of. (Let me know if you're aware of a State Bar grievance against an attorney taking more than two years to resolve.); April 13, 2017 at 4:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Whether or not the State Bar is doing anything wrong - the Federal Court cannot order them to do anything, especially in a case where the State Bar is not a party.

It's been explained to you, you refuse to listen, and refuse to learn, which just shows you aren't serious about helping Crystal, you are just serious about emotionally abusing her.; April 13, 2017 at 4:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"The relevance of Mangum's case is that the State Bar has a duty to investigate grievances filed against attorneys".

Harrian hypocrisy.

Sidney felt the state bar should not have investigated Nifong for Nifong's glaringly obvious violations of prosecutorial ethics.; April 13, 2017 at 5:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"I do not know why you believe the grievance against Ann Petersen was filed by someone other than Crystal. Fact is that Crystal filed the grievance herself, and the State Bar wrote back to her acknowledging receipt of it. Furthermore, during the subsequent period (more than two years) the State Bar wrote Crystal stating that it was still reviewing her complaint and asking for her patience. The merits of her complaint are definitely not at issue."

Yes they are.

The complaint does not have merit simply because it was filed on behalf of Crystal, which is something you obviously believe, just like you believe the innocent Lacrosse players were guilty of rape just because Crystal accused them.; April 13, 2017 at 5:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"The problem with your hypothetical is that it is totally irrelevant and unrelated to the Motion against the State Bar filed by Crystal. The relevance of Mangum's case is that the State Bar has a duty to investigate grievances filed against attorneys... and in a reasonable time."

Then sue the state bar. Their failure to resolve Mangum's claim to your satisfaction has nothing to do with Mangum's habeas petition.

Moreover, as a matter of fundamental fairness (which is reflected in the rules of civil procedure of all 50 states as well as the federal rules), if you are seeking a court order compelling someone to do something they are entitled to notice of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard.

These are basic concepts that a high school student could grasp after a few minutes on google.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 13, 2017 at 5:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 263 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 4 weeks and 1 day since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 29 days since the Ides of March 2017, 58 days since February 14, 2017, 103 days since the end of 2016, 286 days since the end of June 2016, 354 days since April 24, 2016, 394 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,237 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,588 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,242 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 13, 2017 at 5:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Does anyone notice the similarities between this "issue" with the State Bar and Sidney's issue with DA Lorin Freeman? In the latter case Sidney thought he could compel the Wake County DA to intervene in a criminal case which was prosecuted in Durham County. In this present issue, Sidney believes he can compel a Federal Court to intervene in a State of North Carolina matter over which the Federal Court has no jurisdiction.

And at one time Sidney claimed people were in awe over his grasp of legal matters in spite of his lack of formal training.

Can we say delusional megalomania, boys and girls?; April 13, 2017 at 10:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 7:02 PM:

Why such a douchebag?; April 14, 2017 at 3:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 262 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 4 weeks and 2 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 30 days since the Ides of March 2017, 59 days since February 14, 2017, 104 days since the end of 2016, 287 days since the end of June 2016, 355 days since April 24, 2016, 395 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,238 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,589 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,241 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 14, 2017 at 3:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 261 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 4 weeks and 3 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 31 days since the Ides of March 2017, 60 days since February 14, 2017, 105 days since the end of 2016, 288 days since the end of June 2016, 356 days since April 24, 2016, 396 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,239 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,590 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,240 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 15, 2017 at 7:17 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Hey, Walt.

The problem with your hypothetical is that it is totally irrelevant and unrelated to the Motion against the State Bar filed by Crystal."

Yeah, Sid, it is completely relevant. What you want is a party to be able to subject a non-party to a court order or judgment. That is simply unfair and denies the non-party the opportunity to be heard. Same as the hypothetical that A Lawyer and I pose. So again, is it fair for us to sue each other and render you homeless? Simple yes or no.

Walt-in-Durham; April 15, 2017 at 5:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 260 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 4 weeks and 4 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 32 days since the Ides of March 2017, 61 days since February 14, 2017, 106 days since the end of 2016, 289 days since the end of June 2016, 357 days since April 24, 2016, 397 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,240 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,591 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,239 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 16, 2017 at 5:54 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid said:

"The problem with your hypothetical is that it is totally irrelevant and unrelated to the Motion against the State Bar filed by Crystal. The relevance of Mangum's case is that the State Bar has a duty to investigate grievances filed against attorneys... and in a reasonable time."

Then sue the state bar. Their failure to resolve Mangum's claim to your satisfaction has nothing to do with Mangum's habeas petition.

Moreover, as a matter of fundamental fairness (which is reflected in the rules of civil procedure of all 50 states as well as the federal rules), if you are seeking a court order compelling someone to do something they are entitled to notice of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard.

These are basic concepts that a high school student could grasp after a few minutes on google.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe... HAPPY EASTER to you, your family, and all visitors and commenters to this site.

I would like to know if you believe that the State Bar has a duty to investigate complaints (grievances) against attorneys.

Secondly, do you believe that it is reasonable to take more than two years for the NC State Bar to investigate or review a complaint?

The State Bar, according to its web page, is suppose to take weeks to months to review a complaint... not years.; April 16, 2017 at 7:20 AM
A Lawyer said...: So why doesn't Mangum sue the State Bar?; April 16, 2017 at 8:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 7:02 PM:

Please go frack yourself.; April 16, 2017 at 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Did,

The problem is: even if the State Bar is wrong, you (Crystal) are addressing it in the wrong forum. The judges could agree with you that the State Bar is wrong - since they are not a party, the Court can do nothing about it.

This has been explained to you. You refuse to listen/learn.; April 16, 2017 at 9:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 9:17 AM:

Please go frack yourself.; April 16, 2017 at 12:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"I would like to know if you believe that the State Bar has a duty to investigate complaints (grievances) against attorneys.

Secondly, do you believe that it is reasonable to take more than two years for the NC State Bar to investigate or review a complaint?

The State Bar, according to its web page, is suppose to take weeks to months to review a complaint... not years."

A series of Red Herrings. As the experienced legal experts have explained to you, asking the Federal Court oe a writ of Habeas Corpus is not the proper procedure to deal with an issue Crystal might have with the NC State Bar.

What you are trying to do is sue a Gynecologist because that Gynecologist will not operate on your prostate.

Consider yourself elucidated and enlightened.; April 16, 2017 at 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Clarification:

"What you are trying to do is like you trying to sue a Gynecologist because that Gynecologist will not operate on your prostate.; April 16, 2017 at 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"I would like to know if you believe that the State Bar has a duty to investigate complaints (grievances) against attorneys."

This is a false argument. No one else has claimed that the Bar does not have a duty to investigate properly filed grievances against attorneys.

Sid also said:

"Secondly, do you believe that it is reasonable to take more than two years for the NC State Bar to investigate or review a complaint?"

As a general proposition, no, but I am in no position to comment on Mangum's case as I do not know if a valid complaint was properly submitted to the correct agency, or what the Bar did or did not do in response to it. It's an issue for you/Mangum to take up with the NC State Bar. Complaining about it on here, or seeking a resolution thru an unrelated habeas petition against an entirely different party may make you feel better, but it won't answer your questions or resolve Mangum's complaint.

If you truly seek an answer to the status of Mangum's Bar complaint, you/Mangum need to go thru the proper channels. I'd start by having her write a letter to the Bar asking for an update on her complaint. If you are misrepresenting the status of her complaint, and/or posturing to make Mangum look like a victim, I am not interested in playing along. I think you'll find that no one else is either.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 16, 2017 at 2:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 12:16 PM:

Please go frack yourself.; April 17, 2017 at 3:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr:

Does the use of the word "frack" violate the kenhyderal doctrine?; April 17, 2017 at 3:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Of course, Sid won't listen to any of the advice/information on the State Bar issue - he will just keep asking "don't you think they have a duty" and keep lying to Crystal that he's doing anything to help her.

He was repeatedly told that Lorrin Freeman couldn't do anything about a Durham case, or a crime allegedly committed in Durham, but he just kept asking his same rhetorical questions- getting the same answers, and he ignored it all and actually sued her.

Sid doesn't learn.; April 17, 2017 at 5:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 259 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 4 weeks and 5 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 33 days since the Ides of March 2017, 62 days since February 14, 2017, 107 days since the end of 2016, 290 days since the end of June 2016, 358 days since April 24, 2016, 398 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,241 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,592 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,238 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 17, 2017 at 11:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 258 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 4 weeks and 6 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 34 days since the Ides of March 2017, 63 days since February 14, 2017, 108 days since the end of 2016, 291 days since the end of June 2016, 359 days since April 24, 2016, 399 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,242 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,593 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,237 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 18, 2017 at 2:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 257 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 5 weeks since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 35 days since the Ides of March 2017, 64 days since February 14, 2017, 109 days since the end of 2016, 292 days since the end of June 2016, 360 days since April 24, 2016, 400 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,243 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,594 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,236 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 19, 2017 at 1:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Where

is

the

little

man?; April 19, 2017 at 3:19 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid:

You have 257 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 5 weeks since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 35 days since the Ides of March 2017, 64 days since February 14, 2017, 109 days since the end of 2016, 292 days since the end of June 2016, 360 days since April 24, 2016, 400 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,243 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,594 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,236 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe.

Actually I appreciate you taking time to put up the countdown. Although I am no Nostradamus, I believe that it'll be a matter of weeks before the Motions filed will bring positive results. Also, I am still confident that Crystal will be granted her habeas corpus. The wheels of justice turn slowly... so we all have to be a little patient.; April 19, 2017 at 4:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, Abe.

Actually I appreciate you taking time to put up the countdown. Although I am no Nostradamus, I believe that it'll be a matter of weeks before the Motions filed will bring positive results. Also, I am still confident that Crystal will be granted her habeas corpus. The wheels of justice turn slowly... so we all have to be a little patient."

Just more manifestations of Sidney's delusional megalomania.; April 19, 2017 at 4:54 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid said:

"I would like to know if you believe that the State Bar has a duty to investigate complaints (grievances) against attorneys."

This is a false argument. No one else has claimed that the Bar does not have a duty to investigate properly filed grievances against attorneys.

Sid also said:

"Secondly, do you believe that it is reasonable to take more than two years for the NC State Bar to investigate or review a complaint?"

As a general proposition, no, but I am in no position to comment on Mangum's case as I do not know if a valid complaint was properly submitted to the correct agency, or what the Bar did or did not do in response to it. It's an issue for you/Mangum to take up with the NC State Bar. Complaining about it on here, or seeking a resolution thru an unrelated habeas petition against an entirely different party may make you feel better, but it won't answer your questions or resolve Mangum's complaint.

If you truly seek an answer to the status of Mangum's Bar complaint, you/Mangum need to go thru the proper channels. I'd start by having her write a letter to the Bar asking for an update on her complaint. If you are misrepresenting the status of her complaint, and/or posturing to make Mangum look like a victim, I am not interested in playing along. I think you'll find that no one else is either.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe.

The fact is that Crystal did write the State Bar in January of this year asking about her grievance against Ann Petersen, but she has not received a reply. Click to access letter It seems as though the State Bar is now ignoring her. Any other suggestions?; April 19, 2017 at 6:13 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "It seems as though the State Bar is now ignoring her. Any other suggestions?"

You have had plenty of suggestions, and you have refused them all. Are you incapable of learning?

Walt-in-Durham; April 19, 2017 at 7:23 AM
Anonymous said...: If she feels the Bar is doing wrong, she needs to sue the Bar - she cannot ask a Judge in an unrelated lawsuit to do anything.

As Walt noted - you've had numerous suggestions - your refusal to listen/learn is your problem, not the lack of help.; April 19, 2017 at 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, 3.4 years and you have not been able to get a court date for Mangum's appeal. While this person gets one in less than 2 years:

http://www.wral.com/wake-county-man-to-appeal-murder-conviction-in-2013-death-of-jamie-hahn/16652408/

You need to let real lawyers handle Mangum's case. Give it up...; April 19, 2017 at 9:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Mangum had a court date for her appeal. The Court of Appeals ruled against her, her attorney filed to have the Supreme Court review it. Sid convinced Crystal to withdraw that request and submit her own. The Supreme Court denied the review.

She had her appeal - she lost.; April 19, 2017 at 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Where is the little man?; April 20, 2017 at 3:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 256 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 5 weeks and 1 day since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks.

It has been 36 days since the Ides of March 2017, 65 days since February 14, 2017, 110 days since the end of 2016, 293 days since the end of June 2016, 361 days since April 24, 2016, 401 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,244 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,595 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,235 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 20, 2017 at 4:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"Hey, Abe.

The fact is that Crystal did write the State Bar in January of this year asking about her grievance against Ann Petersen, but she has not received a reply. Click to access letter It seems as though the State Bar is now ignoring her. Any other suggestions?"

At the very least, I'd have Mangum send another letter. I don't know if she can call the Bar from prison, but if she can I would have her do that, too. I would also research what her options are to compel the Bar to make a determination in her case.

Also, I'd make sure that the Bar has her correct current mailing address and contact information. It is possible that the Bar made a determination on her complaint and she did not receive it.

I do not understand why you and Mangum are fixated on her Bar complaint. I defer to Walt and A Lawyer, but even if the Bar makes a determination in her favor and sanctions her lawyer, I don't think that it is going to be binding on the court in her criminal case and I don't think it is going to get her out of prison. I also don't think the Bar's failure to act on her complaint prevents her/you from arguing in her criminal case that she received ineffective assistance from counsel.

I think the real problem for Mangum isn't that she received ineffective assistance from counsel. I think it is that she received effective assistance from multiple attorneys but chose to ignore it because she/you didn't like what they were telling her and, as a result, she got a very bad outcome in her case. Once again, I think Mangum is the cause of her own problem.

If Mangum listened to her lawyers, all of whom knew what they were doing and were looking out for her interests, there is a very good chance she would be out of prison by now, or at least a hell of a lot closer to being out than she is now.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 20, 2017 at 5:05 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney, 3.4 years and you have not been able to get a court date for Mangum's appeal. While this person gets one in less than 2 years:

http://www.wral.com/wake-county-man-to-appeal-murder-conviction-in-2013-death-of-jamie-hahn/16652408/

You need to let real lawyers handle Mangum's case. Give it up...

A real lawyer handling her case is why Crystal is in the predicament she currently finds herself. She would have fared better, in my opinion, had she represented herself in the initial criminal trial. Better that she represent herself inexperienced than have an experienced turncoat attorney represent her who is looking out for the best interests of Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner.; April 20, 2017 at 5:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Mangum had a court date for her appeal. The Court of Appeals ruled against her, her attorney filed to have the Supreme Court review it. Sid convinced Crystal to withdraw that request and submit her own. The Supreme Court denied the review.

She had her appeal - she lost.

You have things out of sequence. Ann Petersen offered to file a Petition for Discretionary Review (PDR) with the NC Supreme Court, but Crystal was so disappointed with the weak appeal that Peterson filed that she did not accept the offer. She, instead, filed a PDR Pro Se, and I hand-delivered it to the NC Supreme Court Clerk's office on the deadline date. I then manually carried a copy to the Attorney General's Office, and within a couple of hours later, Petersen filed a rushed PDR... which was essentially no different than the initial appeal that she had filed earlier.

It is obvious that the Attorney General's Office notified Petersen, who then filed a separate PDR... pretending that she had no knowledge of the one filed hours earlier by Crystal.; April 20, 2017 at 5:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid said:

"Hey, Abe.

The fact is that Crystal did write the State Bar in January of this year asking about her grievance against Ann Petersen, but she has not received a reply. Click to access letter It seems as though the State Bar is now ignoring her. Any other suggestions?"

At the very least, I'd have Mangum send another letter. I don't know if she can call the Bar from prison, but if she can I would have her do that, too. I would also research what her options are to compel the Bar to make a determination in her case.

Also, I'd make sure that the Bar has her correct current mailing address and contact information. It is possible that the Bar made a determination on her complaint and she did not receive it.

I do not understand why you and Mangum are fixated on her Bar complaint. I defer to Walt and A Lawyer, but even if the Bar makes a determination in her favor and sanctions her lawyer, I don't think that it is going to be binding on the court in her criminal case and I don't think it is going to get her out of prison. I also don't think the Bar's failure to act on her complaint prevents her/you from arguing in her criminal case that she received ineffective assistance from counsel.

I think the real problem for Mangum isn't that she received ineffective assistance from counsel. I think it is that she received effective assistance from multiple attorneys but chose to ignore it because she/you didn't like what they were telling her and, as a result, she got a very bad outcome in her case. Once again, I think Mangum is the cause of her own problem.

If Mangum listened to her lawyers, all of whom knew what they were doing and were looking out for her interests, there is a very good chance she would be out of prison by now, or at least a hell of a lot closer to being out than she is now.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Hey, Abe.

Thanks for the suggestions. I might just see if Crystal can make a call. Of course, it will be up to the State Bar receptionist, if human, as whether or not to accept the call. Also, the State Bar has her address, as she included it in her letter and she has received mail from the State Bar in the past... sent to her prison address. Personally, I believe that the Bar's Grievance Commission is withholding taking action on Crystal's complaint against Petersen because they don't want to have a ruling that will be in her favor. (It's a conspiracy against her... a broad one.)

I am not a lawyer either, but I believe that if it is supported that she received ineffective council during her initial appeal, then she would be able to refile and file a stronger appeal with the NC Court of Appeals than the original.; April 20, 2017 at 5:56 AM
Walt said...: Abe wrote: "I think the real problem for Mangum isn't that she received ineffective assistance from counsel. I think it is that she received effective assistance from multiple attorneys but chose to ignore it because she/you didn't like what they were telling her and, as a result, she got a very bad outcome in her case. Once again, I think Mangum is the cause of her own problem.

If Mangum listened to her lawyers, all of whom knew what they were doing and were looking out for her interests, there is a very good chance she would be out of prison by now, or at least a hell of a lot closer to being out than she is now."

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

Walt-in-Durham; April 20, 2017 at 6:08 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: " Personally, I believe that the Bar's Grievance Commission is withholding taking action on Crystal's complaint against Petersen because they don't want to have a ruling that will be in her favor."

Without evidence to support your belief. We operate on evidence, not beliefs.

"(It's a conspiracy against her... a broad one.)"

If you are spinning conspiracy theories, you are probably a nut. In your case, you don't even present evidence of a conspiracy. Just your nutty ramblings.

Here is some evidence for you:
1. Crystal stabbed Daye. (admission against interest)
2. Daye died. (death certificate and of course autopsy.)
3. Daye died as a result of stab wounds inflicted by Crystal. (State and Defense experts agree)

That's all on Crystal. So she is where she is because she killed a man in an act of severe domestic violence. She got a substantial sentence because she deserved it.

You have harmed her case along the way for reasons not clear to me. But, you have done so and this is not a decent thing to do, even to a guilty woman. To the extent her punishment has be made greater by your interference, you should be ashamed. You have been given extraordinarily good legal information here. Only one bit of it you have taken. (To dismiss WRAL and refile against it in state court.) You have demonstrated almost no capacity to learn from your mistakes, or take the good information from those who have offered it. Again, you should be ashamed for your willful ignorance.

Walt-in-Durham; April 20, 2017 at 6:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Meier's letter to Mangum (which Sid posted, then removed) had said that the State had rejected Crystal's offer to plead guilty to time served (something Sid says was offered and rejected, but the letter contradicted Sid, and Mangum has never accused Meier of lying in the letter), but did offer a manslaughter plea, which would have had her only serve another 2 years or so (which she rejected).

Yes, apparently had she listened to her lawyers, she'd be out by now.

I do wonder why Sid took the letter down - perhaps because it directly contradicted many of the lies he continues to tell?; April 20, 2017 at 6:24 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I am not a lawyer either,"

That is obvious, yet you continue to pontificate about the law. A subject for which you have no training or any record of success. Indeed a subject which you refuse to learn about.

"but I believe that if it is supported that she received ineffective council during her initial appeal, then she would be able to refile and file a stronger appeal with the NC Court of Appeals than the original."

Citation to authority for that conclusion? Or is it that you just wish another injustice in favor of Crystal?

Walt-in-Durham; April 20, 2017 at 6:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid - you do realize that the Federal Habeas lawsuit can do nothing about letting her refile an appeal with the North Carolina Court of Appeals, right? The Federal Court can't order the NC COA to do anything. If she wants the COA to review something, she needs to file a Writ with that Court.

Once again, you do nothing that can actually help.; April 20, 2017 at 10:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Personally, I believe that the Bar's Grievance Commission is withholding taking action on Crystal's complaint against Petersen because they don't want to have a ruling that will be in her favor. (It's a conspiracy against her... a broad one.)"

At least this time around Sidney does not try to pass himself off as someone capable of thinking.; April 20, 2017 at 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"A real lawyer handling her case is why Crystal is in the predicament she currently finds herself. She would have fared better, in my opinion, had she represented herself in the initial criminal trial."

Which shows only that your opinion is worth less than 1/100,000 pre Euro Italian Lira

"Better that she represent herself inexperienced than have an experienced turncoat attorney represent her who is looking out for the best interests of Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner."

Except said "experienced turncoat attorneys...who are looking out for the best interests of Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner." do not exist.; April 20, 2017 at 1:42 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 743 Newer› Newest»

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Libel lawsuit: Harr v. WRAL-5 .. Plaintiff responds

743 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me