Thursday, July 20, 2017

A stacked deck in the courthouse



545 comments:

1 – 200 of 545   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Sidney, the opening of your latest screed again documents you are a deluded megalomaniac. The gist of your screed is that you determine whether or not your suit is meritorious. It is the court which determines whether or not your suit is meritorious. As the legal experts on this blog have explained to you, your suit is not meritorious. It is also obvious, to any rational person, your lawsuit is frivolous and vexatious. And I say again, you filed your suit, playing the race card, in hopes of getting a big judgment. Judging from the Indy Week article, you have spent your whole wasted life trying to score big judgments in the court room. You are incapable of learning. Yet you say you elucidate. HAH!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Sid admits that if the Judge follows the law he loses ...

You have reached new lows of being pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

You have said in multiple places in your filings against Duke that Duke conspired to discriminate against you because of your advocacy for DA Nifong and his role in the Duke Rape Hoax(not Duke Rape Case but the Duke Rape HOAX). You yourself have connected your suits against Duke to the Duke Rape HOAX. And you are incredibly stupid and incredibly delusional in your desperate attempt to get a big award from someone.

Anonymous said...

Sidney says: "WRAL-5 News is counting on help from the Courts to get away with destroying my life."

You are blaming WRAL-5 for destroying your life? No you did that all on your own.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"WRAL-5 News is counting on help from the Courts to get away with destroying my life."

You destroyed your own life years before you ever came to Raleigh and decided to get involved in the Duke Rape HOAX, when you decided to devote your life to filing frivolous non meritorious lawsuits instead of practicing medicine.

Anonymous said...

for the last time I am telling you g to stop trolling and cyberbullying me so that I can read dr harr's new sharlog without being stalked by you and your hate crimes which you continue to commit as an evil duke troll and I want you also to tell your twin evil duke troll mini-g to stop trolling me by saying I am dr harr or kenhyderal posting anonymously because I am not

blah blah blah

Anonymous said...

Sidney or Kenny or probably both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion they have friends on line.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous July 21, 2017 at 3:29 AM

What number last time is this?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous July 21, 2017 at 3:29 AM:

"for the last time I am telling you g to stop trolling and cyberbullying me so that I can read dr harr's new sharlog without being stalked by you and your hate crime"

No one in his right mind would WANT to read what Sidney publishes, unless it is for his personal amusement.

guiowen said...

I see CryBully Tinfoil is crying again!

Anonymous said...

g continues to post anonymously to create the illusion he has friends on line.

Anonymous said...

mini-g continues to post anonymously to create the illusion he has friends on line.

Anonymous said...

g and mini g do have friends on line. Sidney and Kenny or both posting on line have only each other and Crystal, and that is worth less than having no friends.

Anonymous said...

mini-g continues to post anonymously to create the illusion he has friends on line.

Anonymous said...

mini g does have friends on line. Neither Sidney nor Kenny do except for each other. That is why they have to post anonymously to delude themselves that they have friends.

Anonymous said...

mini-g continues to post anonymously to create the illusion he has friends on line.

Anonymous said...

Sidney or Kenny or probably both posting anonymusly again because they have no friends. Oops. I forgot. They are friends of murderess/false accuser Crystal Mangum. They are not making impotent threats at g or mini g any more. Have they comprehended, albeit involuntarily, that that they are impotent cranks?

Anonymous said...

crybully/tinfoil(or maybe Sidney/Kenny) is(are) are screaming and kicking, throwing a tantrum because he(they) have no friends and no support.

Anonymous said...

mini-g continues to post anonymously to create the illusion he has friends on line.

Anonymous said...

crybully/tinfoil(or maybe Sidney/Kenny) still rolling on the floor kicking and screaming up a tantrum because he(they) have zero friends and zero supporters.

Anonymous said...

mini-g continues to post anonymously to create the illusion he has friends on line.

Anonymous said...

cryfoil/tinbully(or Sidney/Kenny) still throwing impotent tantrums

Anonymous said...

crying tinfoil bully(alias Sidney or Kenny or both) still crying because g and mini g have friends and supporters and he does not.

Sidney calls himself Nifong Supporter.

That is like calling himself athletic supporter for a eunuch.

He supports nothing.

Anonymous said...

mini-g continues to post anonymously to create the illusion he has friends on line.

Anonymous said...

Poor tincryfoilbully. He has no friends, just tantrums.

Anonymous said...

Good bye mini-g.

Anonymous said...

Good riddance, TintCoil/frytully.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Were you imitating g and mini g hoping that would get you friends and followers on line?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
crying tinfoil bully(alias Sidney or Kenny or both) still crying because g and mini g have friends and supporters and he does not.

Sidney calls himself Nifong Supporter.

That is like calling himself athletic supporter for a eunuch.

He supports nothing.


Hardy-harr-harr. So funny, I almost forgot to laugh. Seriously, Anony, you should consider writing for SNL or Jimmy Fallon.

Anonymous said...

Udaman Sid. Way to smack down Ubes.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
crying tinfoil bully(alias Sidney or Kenny or both) still crying because g and mini g have friends and supporters and he does not.

Sidney calls himself Nifong Supporter.

That is like calling himself athletic supporter for a eunuch.

He supports nothing."


Hardy-harr-harr. So funny, I almost forgot to laugh. Seriously, Anony, you should consider writing for SNL or Jimmy Fallon."

Sidney, maybe you should write for some tabloids like the National Enquirer, the National Examiner, The Star or maybe the Weekly World News.

Probably you can't because your garbage is so incredible and delusional that even for those rags find it unacceptable.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 5:27 AM wrote: "Sidney calls himself Nifong Supporter.

That is like calling himself athletic supporter for a eunuch."


Classic! Rack him! That has to be one of the best put downs on this site's history.

Thank you sir.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

For Kenhyderal who claims that the story of Crystal stealing a cab and trying to run down a police officer was concocted by the Lacrosse apologists to discredit her:

Here is a link to an image of the Police Report generated at the time of the incident, years before the Duke Rape Hoax:

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/2862/372/1600/175694/Crystal_Gail_Mangum_Inmate_form.jpg

Pronounced Kĕh-'nē 'ĕd-'wérds) said...

Well I heard mister Harr b*tch about her
Well, I heard ol' Sid put her down
Well, I hope Sid Harr will remember
A Durham man don't need him around, anyhow

Sweet home Durham County
Where the skies are so blue
Sweet Home Durham County
Lord, I'm coming home to you

Anonymous said...

Bad news for you and your website, Sid....
http://gizmodo.com/adobe-is-finally-killing-flash-for-real-this-time-1797231399

Looks like you need to go pick up a few more juco classes.

kenhyderal said...

Trying to run down a Police Officer is called attempted murder not assault on a Government Official. This was the obscure chicken-shit charge they laid when Crystal, in backing up to park off the driving lane, brushed the approaching Police Officer's Coat. He received absolutely no injury from this inadvertent contact. It's the same charge that would be laid if you for instance, spat at or shoved an officious and obnoxious government clerk. Stealing a car is Grand Theft Auto. She was charged with a misdemeanor for taking a set of keys. b.t.w. she had permission to do so but the impaird cab-driver denied this because it would have given him trouble with the cab owner.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Trying to run down a Police Officer is called attempted murder not assault on a Government Official. This was the obscure chicken-shit charge they laid when Crystal, in backing up to park off the driving lane, brushed the approaching Police Officer's Coat. He received absolutely no injury from this inadvertent contact. It's the same charge that would be laid if you for instance, spat at or shoved an officious and obnoxious government clerk. Stealing a car is Grand Theft Auto. She was charged with a misdemeanor for taking a set of keys. b.t.w. she had permission to do so but the impaird cab-driver denied this because it would have given him trouble with the cab owner."

Crystal lied in her book.

The incident happened in 2003, years before Crystal lied about being raped. The story was not concocted by the lawyers defending the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, as you have alleged.

She did not have permission to take the keys. She stole them. That she got a break is meaningless, except to her.

She was drunk. She did not have a vialuid drivers license at the timme.

Anonymous said...

For Kenhyderal:

If you checke the news sources you would read, and I repeat this, that the story of Crystal's car theft came from police records generated at the time of the incident, years before Crystal became notorious as the victimizer/false accuser in the Duke Rape Hoax. You LIE when you claim the story was something concocted by the Duke defendants' lawyers.

And that Crystal pleaded to four misdemeanors does not change the facts of the case. She stole the cab, was intoxicated, drove at 70 miles per hour while intoxicated, which is reckless and dangerous to herself and to others, and did try to run down a police officer. She was ALLOWED to plead to the misdemeanor charges. She took a plea deal.

Your source is Crystal's account in her farce of a book, composed years after the event, after she had been thoroughly discredited. That, in and of itself, renders her account non credible, especially in view of her lack of credibility in the Duke Rape Hoax.

Anonymous said...

So, now Kenny is upset that the police didn't overcharge Crystal in her first issue?

At least he's finally given up blindly supporting Sid in his games.

They are both idiots who just like abusing Crystal.

kenhyderal said...

Huh?

(Pronounced Kĕh-'nē 'ĕd-'wérds) said...

Show me your thong, Crystal Gail, Crystal Gail
I got your drinking money, show me your tail
People said she was useless, them people are the fools
'Cause Crystal Gail was the finest stripper to ever falsely accuse

Walt said...

Kehneedwerds wrote: "Show me your thong, Crystal Gail, Crystal Gail ...."

Rack 'em! Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any better.

Walt-in-Durham

(Pronounced Kĕh-'nē 'ĕd-'wérds) said...

Well its true I love the money and I love stealin' a taxi car
I like drinkin' beer and flexeril and stripping in a bar
But when I come off the drugs, well I just got to have my time
'Cause I got to find a break in this action, else I'm gonna lose my mind

[Chorus]
So, don't ask me no questions
And I won't tell you no lies
So, don't ask me about my business
And I won't stab you in the side

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

In your July 19 post, you made a statement to the effect that in calling your lawsuits against Duke connected to the Duke Lacrosse incident(it was not the Duke Rape case as no rape occurred), it would cause a reasonable person to conclude you were trying to have the Duke defendants "prosecuted and imprisoned for sexual assault"

First as you are not a reasonable person you would not comprehend what a reasonable person would conclude.

Second, it is glaringly obvious to any truly reasonable person you were not trying to get the innocent defendants convicted of anything. What a reasonable person might conclude, from what was in your original complaint, was that you were trying to coerce Duke to support your J4N vendetta. Personally I think you had a different agenda, namely,, believing that Duke caved in to the Lacrosse defendants and paid them off even though Duke, according to you, would have prevailed in court, you thought Duke would cave in to you and pay you off.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Let's go over this again.

You allege that Duke deliberately conspired to have you arrested at the Breyer event. You base this on, you sent letters to the President of Duke and to the Dean of the Las School informing them you would attend the Breyer event.

You have admitted that you have zero evidence that anyone in power at Duke ever read your letters. And you have said that a reasonable person would surmise that you were targeted for discrimination. I repeat, you are not a reasonable person and are not capable of what a reasonable person would surmise. You also are incapable of realizing that surmising, even by a reasonable person, is not evidence in a court of law.

And then you have the delusional megalomaniacal temerity to say your suits against Duke and against others have merit.

(Pronounced Kĕh-'nē 'ĕd-'wérds) said...

Lord knows, she can't change
Lord help her, she can't change
Lord she can't change
Won't you fly high jailbird yeah

kenhyderal said...

Walt said: "rack-em"...............https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/72/95/f0/7295f084587aaf6aef7e838a61307595--cartoon-girls-cartoon-art.jpg

kenhyderal said...

Ooops bad link https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/72/95/f0/7295f084587aaf6aef7e838a61307595.jpg

guiowen said...

So, Kenny,
Is this your new girl friend? Good idea, letting Sidney have a free rein with Crystal.

Anonymous said...

More dellusional megalomania from Sidney Harr:

Sidney says Duke had no chance to defend against his claim of discrimination because he recorded the incident he alleges was discrimination.

The recording documented that Sidney became belligerent with a security guard who told him he was to leave. He was instructed to leave because he was in the middle of violating Duke's non solicitation policy. Sidney's defense to this was that He, Sidney, not Duke decided what was a violation of Duke's non solicitation policy.

Sidney also tries to claim that Professor James Coleman intervened in the incident. The recording indicates that Sidney tried to dragoon Professor Coleman into the incident.

Anonymous said...

Siney Harr:

You said WEAL's statement that you were kicked off campus because of your support of Nifong was misleading.

HUH!!!!

Really???

You have said in your suits against Duke happened because Duke conspired to discriminate against you because of YOUR SUPPORT OF NIFONG. Do you ever read what you wrote in your filings. Or are you trying to pull off a Mark Gottlieb, the Durham PD officer who, months after he began work on the case, produced a from memory document via which he tried to explain away all the inconsistencies in so called Duke Rape Case which showed it was actually the Duke Rape HOAX. Months after what you wrote you are trying to say your did not write that.

The only thing misleading in your screed is that WRAL tried to make your suits look like frivolous and vexatious litigation.

It is res ipsa loquitur that your suits ARE frivolous and vexatious. I say again, you file your suits and play the race card hoping that someone will pay you off with a big settlement.

Ain't gonna happen.

Anonymous said...

OOPS!!

I meant, You said WRAL's statement that you were kicked off campus because of your support of Nifong was misleading. Sorry for the typo.

(Pronounced Kĕh-'nē 'ĕd-'wérds) supporter said...

Right on (Pronounced Kĕh-'nē 'ĕd-'wérds). Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril..

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

You said that res judicata did not apply because you did not have a fair trial.

Because you filed a lawsuit, that does not entitle you to have your case tried in court, just like Crystal's allegations of rape against the Duke defendants did not entitle her to have those accused by her go to trial. That is why the process includes pre trial procedures.

You could not establish pre trial that you had a legitimate case against Duke.

Again, it is not you who decides whether or not your case has merit. The court decides that.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

You got it wrong again.

In the second to last paragraph of part 1 of your 7/19 screed you refer to Crystal as the "Duke Lacrosse Accuser". She is the Duke Lacrosse FALSE accuser.

You have provided zero evidence that Crystal was ever raped, that she ever told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.

The Late Sam Cooke said...

(Hoh! Ah!) I hear something saying (Hoh! Ah!)

(Well don't you know)
That's the sound of Sidney Harr
Working on the libel, compla-aint
That's the sound of Sidney Harr
Working on the libel complaint

All day long he work so hard till the sun is going down
Working on the motions and blogs and wearing, wearing a frown
You hear him moaning his life away
Then you hear somebody say

That's the sound of Sidney Harr
Working on the libel, compla-aint
That's the sound of Sidney Harr
Working on the libel complaint

Can't you hear him singing, mmm (Hoh! Ah!)
He's going to NCCIW one of these days
He's going there to see his woman
Who he loves so dear
But meanwhile he gotta work right here

All day long he's singing, mmm (Hoh! Ah!)
His work is so hard
Give him money
He needs money, his work is so hard
Woah ooo
His work is so hard

Nifong Supporter said...


The Late Sam Cooke said...
(Hoh! Ah!) I hear something saying (Hoh! Ah!)

(Well don't you know)
That's the sound of Sidney Harr
Working on the libel, compla-aint
That's the sound of Sidney Harr
Working on the libel complaint

All day long he work so hard till the sun is going down
Working on the motions and blogs and wearing, wearing a frown
You hear him moaning his life away
Then you hear somebody say

That's the sound of Sidney Harr
Working on the libel, compla-aint
That's the sound of Sidney Harr
Working on the libel complaint

Can't you hear him singing, mmm (Hoh! Ah!)
He's going to NCCIW one of these days
He's going there to see his woman
Who he loves so dear
But meanwhile he gotta work right here

All day long he's singing, mmm (Hoh! Ah!)
His work is so hard
Give him money
He needs money, his work is so hard
Woah ooo
His work is so hard

August 2, 2017 at 9:25 AM


Hmmm... not bad. Not anywheres near Weird Al Yankovich quality, but keep trying. However, why don't you consider recording it? Now, that'd be really impressive.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

You got it wrong again.

In the second to last paragraph of part 1 of your 7/19 screed you refer to Crystal as the "Duke Lacrosse Accuser". She is the Duke Lacrosse FALSE accuser.

You have provided zero evidence that Crystal was ever raped, that she ever told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.

August 1, 2017 at 9:50 AM


It has never been proven that Crystal Mangum was not sexually assaulted at the March 13, 2006 party... and she maintains, to this day, that she was.

The Late Sam Cooke said...

I'm dead, so recording it would be impressive.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"It has never been proven that Crystal Mangum was not sexually assaulted at the March 13, 2006 party..."

Which is totally irrelevant as the criteria for convicting anyone of a crime are 1) it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime happened and 2) it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the individuals accused were the perpetrators. No accused is obligated to establish innocence by proving the crime did not happen. Sidney, I remind you that you kept posting that the State had no case against Crystal for the murder of Reginald Daye. Why are you not arguing that Crystal should have had to prove she did not murder Reginald Daye?

"and she maintains, to this day, that she was."

Which means only that she continues to lie about being raped.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

You still have provided zero evidence that Crystal was ever raped, you still have provided zero evidence Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped.

You can repeat that Roy Cooper sealed the case file. That is but an admission you have zero evidence that Crystal was ever raped or that she ever told the truth when she claimed she ha been raped.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Why don't you explain the concept of the Prosecution's obligation to prove, and then why you believe, with regard to the Duke Rape Hoax, that the defendants were obligated to prove themselves innocent.

When you pontificate that no one proved Crystal lied about being raped, you pontificate that the Lacrosse players were obligated to prove themselves innocent.

Just like each and every time you pontificate that Crystal was the "victim/accuser" in the Duke Rape Case, you do proclaim the accused were guilty, and go ahead and deny it if you want, but you DO proclaim them guilty.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 3:19 AM wrote: "Which means only that she continues to lie about being raped."

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

Anonymous said...


Sid:

Continuing to refer to Crystal Mangum was the accuser in the Duke rape case is a tactical mistake. It reinforces the fact that she is not a good person and is not to be believed. A prudent advocate would not continuously refer to her by that moniker in a completely unrelated case.

kenhyderal said...

Huh?

guiowen said...

As usual, Kenny shows his displeasure by grunting.

Fake Kenhyderal said...

Kenny's singing back-up for the "late Same Cooke" on his Libel Complaint song....

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

The reason why you did not sue the author of the Indy Week article is that you knew the author could prove the truth of what he wrote.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Check this out

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/a-psychological-analysis-of-trump-supporters-has-uncovered-5-key-traits-about-them/#.WYSKtDI5Z8k.facebook

You have the characteristics of a Trump supporter.

Anonymous said...

Sidney:

Reference: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/a-psychological-analysis-of-trump-supporters-has-uncovered-5-key-traits-about-them/#.WYSKtDI5Z8k.facebook

What I mean:

Authoritarian Personality Syndrome: "Authoritarian personality syndrome—a well-studied and globally-prevalent condition—is a state of mind that is characterized by belief in total and complete obedience to one’s authority."

You have expected a lot of people and agencies to bow down to whatever authority you believe you have, the courts, Duke University, the inncent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, WRAL< DA Freeman, to nae a few.

Social dominance orientation: "Social dominance orientation (SDO)—which is distinct but related to authoritarian personality syndrome—refers to people who have a preference for the societal hierarchy of groups, specifically with a structure in which the high-status groups have dominance over the low-status ones. Those with SDO are typically dominant, tough-minded, and driven by self-interest."

You do see yourself as dominant, in your repeated claims that you know the truth in the Duke Lacrosse incident( which was the Duke Rape HOAX, not the Duke Rape Case). You have triedto dominate Duke, DA Freeman, WEAL, and the courts, to nae a few.

Prejudice: "It is a well-known fact that the Republican party, going at least as far back to Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy,” used strategies that appealed to bigotry, such as lacing speeches with “dog whistles”—code words that signaled prejudice toward minorities that were designed to be heard by racists but no one else."

It is res ipsa loquitur that you manifest your prejudices, especially against all Lacrosse players at Duke and particularly against the three innocet, falsely accused players, whom you proclaim guilty each and every time you call Crystal, the victim/accuser in the Rape hoax when she was the victimizer/false accuser. You have presented zero evidence that the rape ever happened or that Crystal ever told the truth when she said the rape had happened.

Intergroup contact: "Intergroup contact refers to contact with members of groups that are outside one’s own, which has been experimentally shown to reduce prejudice. As such, it’s important to note that there is growing evidence that Trump’s white supporters have experienced significantly less contact with minorities than other Americans."

Maybe you are a minority but you avoid, in a way which does manifest your prejudices, contact with anyone who tells you the truth about Crystal, that she became a convicted criminal years before the Duke Rape Hoax happened and is a victimizer/false accuser.

Relative deprivation: "Relative deprivation refers to the experience of being deprived of something to which one believes they are entitled. It is the discontent felt when one compares their position in life to others who they feel are equal or inferior but have unfairly had more success than them."

You lie to harp upon that you have an MD degree appended to your name but you rant and rave against others who have the degree but whom, unlike you, are trained and experienced in the practice of clinical medicine, e.g. Dr. Nichols. You also manifest a bit of hostility towards lawyers. You refused to retain a lawyer to represent you in your frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits against Duke, saying they would take your money and then sell you out. I guess you are not familiar with the contingency fee system. The lawyer represents a client in a suit for a percentage of whatever award the client receives. If the client is awarded nothing, the lawyer representing him would get nothing.

(Pronounced Kĕh-'nē 'ĕd-'wérds) supporter said...

Right on (Pronounced Kĕh-'nē 'ĕd-'wérds). Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril..

kenhyderal said...

A quote from the contorted attempt by Dr. Anonymous to equate Dr. Harr with a Donald Trump supporter, on it's face, an oxymoron. Dr. A. wrote: "that she (Crystal) became a convicted criminal years before( The Duke Lacrosse Case)" In that respect Crystal is no different than some of those she accused.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"A quote from the contorted attempt by Dr. Anonymous to equate Dr. Harr with a Donald Trump supporter, on it's face, an oxymoron. Dr. A. wrote: "that she (Crystal) became a convicted criminal years before( The Duke Lacrosse Case)" In that respect Crystal is no different than some of those she accused."

Two of thee men she accused were not convicted criminals. Collin Finnerty was convicted of assault, but the details of what happened are not at all clear. So far as Crystal she started being an habitual offender in 2002 when she stole a cab and tried to run down a police officer.

The correct term referring to the Duke Lacrosse players should have some of those she FALSELY accused. I remind you, that you , like your mentor Sidney, have provided ero evidence the rape ever happened and zero evidence Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped. Crystal's fanciful account of the cab stealing incident, totally ad odds with the account derived from the police records, generated years before she bacame infamous as the false accuser in the Duke Rape Hoax is documentation that Crystal is an habitual liar.

You, like Sidney, also manifest the same characteristics as Trump's followers.

kenhyderal said...

Dr. Anonymous said: "totally ad odds with the account derived from the police records, generated years before............................Derived being the operative word here. There are no Police records of this event only sensationalized reports in the gutter press supposedly derived from contemporary unpublished Police Reports. The charges laid do not equate to what was reported in the newspaper; whereas Crystal's account corresponds more accurately with what she was in fact charged with.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "totally ad odds with the account derived from the police records, generated years before............................Derived being the operative word here. There are no Police records of this event only sensationalized reports in the gutter press supposedly derived from contemporary unpublished Police Reports."

Like it or not, you do admit there are police reports genearted at the time of the incident, which was years before Crystal becameinfamous for falsely accusing innocent men of raping her.

"The charges laid do not equate to what was reported in the newspaper; whereas Crystal's account corresponds more accurately with what she was in fact charged with."

I say again, Crystal got a break. Crystal's account, generated years after the police reports were generated, after she was going into denial, a denial facilitated by her supported, that she had lied about being raped(again, you have furnished zero evidence she had been raped, zero evidence that she ever told the truth about being raped), and is no where near credible. That you consider it credible is a manifestation of your denial.

And, again, one wonders what kind of charge do you get from wishing she had been raped.

Anonymous said...

Udaman Ubes

Anonymous said...

Sidney or Kenny or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.

Anonymous said...


Sidney or Kenny or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.

Anonymous said...

Sidney or Kenny or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.

Anonymous said...

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Anonymous said...

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney:

Reference: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/a-psychological-analysis-of-trump-supporters-has-uncovered-5-key-traits-about-them/#.WYSKtDI5Z8k.facebook

What I mean:

Authoritarian Personality Syndrome: "Authoritarian personality syndrome—a well-studied and globally-prevalent condition—is a state of mind that is characterized by belief in total and complete obedience to one’s authority."

You have expected a lot of people and agencies to bow down to whatever authority you believe you have, the courts, Duke University, the inncent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, WRAL< DA Freeman, to nae a few.

Social dominance orientation: "Social dominance orientation (SDO)—which is distinct but related to authoritarian personality syndrome—refers to people who have a preference for the societal hierarchy of groups, specifically with a structure in which the high-status groups have dominance over the low-status ones. Those with SDO are typically dominant, tough-minded, and driven by self-interest."

You do see yourself as dominant, in your repeated claims that you know the truth in the Duke Lacrosse incident( which was the Duke Rape HOAX, not the Duke Rape Case). You have triedto dominate Duke, DA Freeman, WEAL, and the courts, to nae a few.

Prejudice: "It is a well-known fact that the Republican party, going at least as far back to Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy,” used strategies that appealed to bigotry, such as

------- Omission of text to conform to limitations on characters -----


August 4, 2017 at 10:20 AM Delete


Hey, Anony.

Your thesis that I am like Trump is incorrect as I am diametrically opposed to what he is and for what he stands. In response to the five traits:

1) Authoritarian Personality: Nothing could be further from the truth. My mission throughout has been to merely enlighten by presenting facts of the case. Whether or not readers/visitors/commenters accept or react to them is for the individual to decide;

2) Social orientation dominance: First, I have never claimed or implied that I am or ever was an authority on the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. I do however believe that I am an authority on the 2011 Crystal Mangum/Reginald Daye incident because of my medical background and because I had been given prosecution discovery. All others relying on mainstream media are unaware of the truths unless they visit this blog site;

3) Prejudice: I have no prejudice against the Duke Lacrosse players or anyone related to that case. Not having any discovery or evidence, I do not feel in position to make a judgment on the three Duke Lacrosse players. WRAL-5, however, does a great job of perpetuating that false conception when in wrote in its July 4, 2016 online article that my lawsuits against Duke University had to do with the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case;

4) Intergroup contact: I do not avoid contact with any individual or group... in fact, I relish it. Others refuse to meet with me to discuss issues of injustice... specifically for one instance Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman; and

5) Relative deprivation: This is actually not far off because I have been repeatedly deprived by the Courts of my day in court. The reason is because it is the only way in which the defendant can hope to prevail. Also, I manifest no hostility towards lawyers as a group... I just distrust them. I distrust lawyers from my observations and my own personal experience. I feel most lawyers will sell out their clients especially if the incentive is great enough, if their is professional duress to do so, and if their clients are poor/minority.

Consider yourself elucidated.

Nifong Supporter said...


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

Usually I can depend upon my commenters to give me important information about my case. However, I have not seen any comments regarding the decision made by Judge Bryan Collins on the WRAL-5 Motion to Dismiss. Did you not know that he granted the motion (as I predicted he would) on July 17, 2017... three days prior to the posting of this sharlog? I only found out about it on July 25, 2017... and not from the Clerk of Court.

I would be interested in hearing your comments about the judge's Order.

As you were.

Fake Kenhyderal said...

The last thing I saw was that you had filed a motion for extension of time to effect service, which was granted on 28 July. This gave you into 30 October to file proof of service of summons and complaint on defendants.

Of course, I'm relying on PacerMonitor for this info...

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...
The last thing I saw was that you had filed a motion for extension of time to effect service, which was granted on 28 July. This gave you into 30 October to file proof of service of summons and complaint on defendants.

Of course, I'm relying on PacerMonitor for this info...

August 8, 2017 at 6:09 AM


Hey, Fake K.

I believe that Pacermonitor only follows federal cases. My lawsuit against WRAL-5, etal. is filed in Wake County Superior Court under the case number: 17-cvs-00739. That is the case under which Judge Bryan Collins ruled... and the case to which I was mysteriously assigned Charlotte attorney William H. Cannon. To date, I have no explanation about that.

Anonymous said...

Sid:

Will you favor us with a copy of Judge Collins' Decision/Order so we can comment on it?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid:

Will you favor us with a copy of Judge Collins' Decision/Order so we can comment on it?

August 8, 2017 at 7:53 AM


Roger that. Will put a link to it by day's end. But don't expect too much.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Your thesis that I am like Trump is incorrect".

Yes it is correct. As with most things, like the innocence of the accused Lacrosse players and that Crystal is a victimizer/false accuser and a murderess, you are in denial.

Anonymous said...

The Order should have been mailed to you. No one else would know about it because it's not online.

What is the status of the Federal Case?

Anonymous said...

Don't worry Sid, we never expect too much from you. A bunch of flawed arguments, refusal to listen/learn, and injecting race into everything.

How did you find out about the Order? Now that you think there was something nefarious about that ... they should have mailed it to you. If you did not get it via mail, how did you find out? If they mailed it to you, that's standard, and they way it is supposed to go, nothing nefarious there.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
The Order should have been mailed to you. No one else would know about it because it's not online.

What is the status of the Federal Case?


I found out about the Order from Amanda Martin, the counsel for WRAL-5. She e-mailed me a copy on July 25th and sent a hard copy that same day.

As far as the federal case goes, Gabe Roth is running and hiding. Although I did get a signed return receipt, the judge requires that he be served. As yet I've spent over $250 trying to get him served in both Chicago and Washington DC.

Here's a link to the Order.

I would be interested in knowing what you and other commenters think about the order.

Anonymous said...

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Anonymous said...

The order is exactly what Walt, A-lawyer, and others told you would happen. They said you had no claims and your case would be dismissed. It was, and that's standard language for such an order. I think it was totally warranted, because you have no case, totally expected, and you will claim it's a result of racial bias and file an appeal, which you will also lose.

Anonymous said...

Did Gabe Roth sign the return receipt? If so he was served. If you were too uneducated to make sure only he could sign for it, so someone else did, you need to read the rules of civil procedure, which are readily available online and very clear, stop whining, and do it right.

Of course, that case will also be summarily dismissed (as you've been told), so stop wasting your money and let it go.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"5) Relative deprivation: This is actually not far off because I have been repeatedly deprived by the Courts of my day in court. The reason is because it is the only way in which the defendant can hope to prevail."

This deals with the similarities between Sidney and Trump supporters.

It is an irrelevant statement. The dismissal of Sidney's suit against WRAL states clearly that Sidney did not give a valid cause of action and cites, North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure Section 12(b)(6). Sidney was not entitled to a day in court.

Sid's statement also indicates his delusion that his case should b accepted at face value, that, unlike all other plaintiffs, he should not have to make his case.

kenhyderal said...

And Justice be damned!

Anonymous said...

No, Justice requires following the rules - it would be unjust to WRAL, the Reporters, and everyone else to let Sid's frivolous lawsuits go forward just because he wants them to. Sid has no case - never has.

But, good to see you pop back up. Sid must have finally remembered the password he uses to pretend anyone actually agrees with him.

A Lawyer said...

Did Gabe Roth sign the return receipt? If so he was served.

Probably not. The Federal Rules (specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 [e][2]) generally require that a summons either be personally handed to the defendant, or left at his home with an adult who lives there. The only exception would be if, under the law of either North Carolina or the state where the defendant lives, service by mail would be valid service in that state's courts. Rule 4(e)(1).

A Lawyer said...

Here's a link to the Order.

I would be interested in knowing what you and other commenters think about the order.


The result is correct, for the reasons I posted way back when Dr. Harr first filed this ill-conceived lawsuit. This kind of short-form order is common in some states (I don't know how common it is in NC), but federal courts would typically also file an opinion explaining why the judge reached that decision. I think the latter practice is far preferable, but different states do things differently than others.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"And Justice be damned!And Justice be damned!"

with regard to the dismissal of Sidney's lawsuit being tossed.

Kenny, like Sidney, believes that Sidney's case should have been accepted on face value, that Sidney should not have had to make his case, just like Sidney and Kenny believe, not that the prosecution should have been required to prove the accused guilty but that the accused should have proven themselves innocent. That is what follows from statements that no one proved Crystal lied.

Anonymous said...

A Lawyer - service by certified mail (or even UPS or FedEx) is legal in NC, so would be valid for our Federal Courts. However, they require that the person you are serving be the one to sigh. So, while the Sheriff or a Process Server could leave it at your home with a person who resides there of suitable age and discretion, the mail would have to be signed by him. I suspect Sid didn't read the rules, and didn't restrict delivery, so someone other than Gabe Roth signed for the certified mail or the package, and therefore it is not valid service.

But, let Sid waste his money. He refuses to read the rules and learn (and they are all available online so his whines about not having access are meaningless). It's his faul.

Anonymous said...

The Order is exactly what you'd expect in NC.

kenhyderal said...

Yeah. Someone, cognizant, like Dr. Harr is seen as a real threat to the corrupt, self serving legal system in North Carolina. It's practitioners, throughout, the bar, the procuracy and the bench, conspire to perpetuate the cozy, lucrative and privileged arrangement they have going for them and their wealthy and advantaged patrons and they
seek to thwart the good Doctor, who champions the poor and marginalized, at every turn. One sneaky method they use is to subjectively apply their obscure, esoteric and meaningless rules and procedures and cite them as their cunning excuse to disqualify him. Sloppy, lazy fellow lawyers, no doubt, are given a pass and such inconsequential minutiae for them are readily overlooked.

guiowen said...

This is the man who complains because I've said he is continually judging and accusing others?

Anonymous said...

Sidney or Kenny or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Yeah. Someone, cognizant, like Dr. Harr is seen as a real threat to the corrupt, self serving legal system in North Carolina."

Irrelevant statement as Sidney has shown on many occasions he is cognizant of anything, especially of the concept of justice.

"It's practitioners, throughout, the bar, the procuracy and the bench, conspire to perpetuate the cozy, lucrative and privileged arrangement they have going for them and their wealthy and advantaged patrons"

No they don't. Here Kenny shows he is not cognizant of the situation he decries, namely that Sidney had no case.

"and they seek to thwart the good Doctor, who champions the poor and marginalized, at every turn."

The "good doctor" is just a minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty board certification(which implies the "good doctor" was considered not a very competent doctor) and spent most of his truncated post medical school filing and losing frivolous lawsuits instead of delivering medical care. Advocating for someone who lied about being raped and accused innocent men, advocating for a corrupt prosecutor who tried to railroad the accused just to advance his own political agenda, and advocating that a drug dealer who shot and killed a fellow drug dealer, in the process killing an innocent 8 year old child, advocating that said drug dealer acted in self defense, is not eactly advocating for the poor and marginalized.

"One sneaky method they use is to subjectively apply their obscure, esoteric and meaningless rules and procedures and cite them as their cunning excuse to disqualify him."

Sidney disqualified himself when he failed to demonsrtrate he had a case.

"Sloppy, lazy fellow lawyers, no doubt, are given a pass and such inconsequential minutiae for them are readily overlooked."

Maybe you can specify what the inconsequential minutiae were. That Sidney failed to state a case is not exactly one of the inconsequential minutiae.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"And Justice be damned!And Justice be damned!"

And Kenny advocates that innocent, men falsely accused of rape be presumed guilty because they were accused by a black woman, who, at the time she accused them, was already a convicted criminal with a history of making false allegations of rape.

Can we say HYPOCRISY boys and girls?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
The order is exactly what Walt, A-lawyer, and others told you would happen. They said you had no claims and your case would be dismissed. It was, and that's standard language for such an order. I think it was totally warranted, because you have no case, totally expected, and you will claim it's a result of racial bias and file an appeal, which you will also lose.

August 9, 2017 at 4:27 AM


It was obvious to me that when the judge switch was announced that the defendants' Motion to Dismiss would be granted. Judge Collins said that he would rule on law when he made his decision, but he didn't present not one law or piece of case law to support his decision. That's because his decision was based on privilege, power, and pigmentation. Yes, the decision was racist at its core... otherwise he would have substantiated his ruling with explanations and citations. The Order by Collins is a disgrace and slap in the face of Lady Justice.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Did Gabe Roth sign the return receipt? If so he was served. If you were too uneducated to make sure only he could sign for it, so someone else did, you need to read the rules of civil procedure, which are readily available online and very clear, stop whining, and do it right.

Of course, that case will also be summarily dismissed (as you've been told), so stop wasting your money and let it go.

August 9, 2017 at 4:30 AM


I read the rules that were supplied to me by the court when I received the summons at the filing of my case. Also, you may not recall, but the lawsuit was not only against an individual, but against the organization for which he was executive director. Ergo, the signature by the employee should count as service to Fix-the-Court. Can we agree on that?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
No, Justice requires following the rules - it would be unjust to WRAL, the Reporters, and everyone else to let Sid's frivolous lawsuits go forward just because he wants them to. Sid has no case - never has.

But, good to see you pop back up. Sid must have finally remembered the password he uses to pretend anyone actually agrees with him.


August 9, 2017 at 9:40 AM


Rules, like laws, are man-made... they are not God-given commandments handed down from the heavens like manna. What is lacking in the Order by Collins is justice.

Nifong Supporter said...


A Lawyer said...
Here's a link to the Order.

I would be interested in knowing what you and other commenters think about the order.

The result is correct, for the reasons I posted way back when Dr. Harr first filed this ill-conceived lawsuit. This kind of short-form order is common in some states (I don't know how common it is in NC), but federal courts would typically also file an opinion explaining why the judge reached that decision. I think the latter practice is far preferable, but different states do things differently than others.

August 9, 2017 at 11:34 AM


Hey, A Lawyer.

Unfortunately, it seems as though the so-called "short form" is as susceptible to judicial abuse as is the Motion to Dismiss. The reason Collins used the short-form in his Order is that he had no legal justification to substantiate his ruling.

My question for you is this: Do you, A Lawyer, believe that the four statements at issue in the July 4, 2016 WRAL-5 News online article are true? (The statements in question being: 1. Harr is a Durham man; 2. Harr's lawsuits in which Eagles ruled were about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case; 3. Harr believes that authorities falsified the autopsy report of Daye; and 4. Harr believes he was kicked out of Duke for supporting - conducting activity of some sort - Mike Nifong.)

First, tell me if you believe the article was accurate or misleading, and then let me know if you believe it should be corrected.

A Lawyer said...

First, tell me if you believe the article was accurate or misleading, and then let me know if you believe it should be corrected.

If you keep asking the wrong question, you will keep getting the wrong answer.

Even if the article was inaccurate or misleading, there is nothing a court can do about that, under the First Amendment, unless it is also legally defamatory.

The statement that you are a "Durham man" is inaccurate but not defamatory. A good editor would have published a correction, but failure to do so is not legally actionable.

Your lawsuits against Duke mention the 2006 lacrosse case in the very first paragraph, so in some sense they are "about" that case. Otherwise, why mention them?

I believe you have said that the autopsy was falsified, haven't you?

And the fourth statement is certainly true.

Anonymous said...

Except go do some research - which I know you won't - State Court Judges don't do opinions like Federal Judges. Go look in all the cases where the Judge granted a 12(b)(6) and in 99% of them, the Order will be almost identical to the one in your case.

You are the worst kind of advocate - you know you have nothing, so you scream racism and hope it scares people into caving. You are a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

As to Service on Fix-The-Court - I'd have to know more about who the employee was. To serve an organization, you have to serve the Registered Agent - not just a random employee. So, who is the Registered Agent of Fix The Court Sid? And does the employee have any relationship to that registered agent? (Their relationship to the corporation is irrelevant.)

Damn, there we go trying to pretend you care about following the rules - you don't - you like losing so you can scream victim and racism. Your life has been one failure and letdown after another - either it's your fault, or it's the "system" - by refusing to acknowledge that it's your fault, you can pretend.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"It was obvious to me that when the judge switch was announced that the defendants' Motion to Dismiss would be granted. Judge Collins said that he would rule on law when he made his decision, but he didn't present not one law or piece of case law to support his decision. That's because his decision was based on privilege, power, and pigmentation. Yes, the decision was racist at its core... otherwise he would have substantiated his ruling with explanations and citations. The Order by Collins is a disgrace and slap in the face of Lady Justice."

Sidney's definition of racist: I don't get my way.

That is it pure and simple.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Rules, like laws, are man-made... they are not God-given commandments handed down from the heavens like manna. What is lacking in the Order by Collins is justice."

Sidney you do not know what justice is, as is evidenced by the title of your blog. You would call it justice for Iifong that his law license be restred and his ethics convictions and contempt conviction be overturned. True Justice for Nifong would have been a felony conviction, a lengthy prison sentence and a six or seven million dollar fine.

Ergo, you are not capable of understanding the justice in the Order by Collins.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Hey, A Lawyer.

Unfortunately, it seems as though the so-called "short form" is as susceptible to judicial abuse as is the Motion to Dismiss. The reason Collins used the short-form in his Order is that he had no legal justification to substantiate his ruling.

Sidney, you can't tell the difference between legal justification and illegal obfuscation, as is evidenced by all the obfuscation in which you indulge.

"My question for you is this: Do you, A Lawyer, believe that the four statements at issue in the July 4, 2016 WRAL-5 News online article are true? (The statements in question being: 1. Harr is a Durham man; 2. Harr's lawsuits in which Eagles ruled were about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case; 3. Harr believes that authorities falsified the autopsy report of Daye; and 4. Harr believes he was kicked out of Duke for supporting - conducting activity of some sort - Mike Nifong.)"

Your question should have been, were they defamatory. Just because they were incorrect and you don't like them does not make them defamatory, as has been explained to you.

"First, tell me if you believe the article was accurate or misleading, and then let me know if you believe it should be corrected."

Again the question is, were they defamatory.

Anonymous said...

Kenny,

If Sid is so great, as you claim, why can he not understand that the issues isn't if the statements are true or not, it's if they are defamatory.

He keeps asking if they are true - not the point. If I'm from North Carolina, but you tell someone I'm from South Carolina, that's false, but it's not defamatory, so I can't sue.

That's the problem with Sid's case - he may be right that they are not true, but he hasn't shown they are defamatory. Saying he's from Durham doesn't hurt his reputation or injure him.

Sid, are the statements defamatory?

Kenny, are the statements defamatory?

Anonymous said...

Sid, are the statements defamatory?

WRAL ruined Sid's life(read his suit). Now if WRAL would fork over some cash that would help towards alleviating his lost life.

Anonymous said...

Sidney or Kenny or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Kenny,

If Sid is so great, as you claim, why can he not understand that the issues isn't if the statements are true or not, it's if they are defamatory.

He keeps asking if they are true - not the point. If I'm from North Carolina, but you tell someone I'm from South Carolina, that's false, but it's not defamatory, so I can't sue.

That's the problem with Sid's case - he may be right that they are not true, but he hasn't shown they are defamatory. Saying he's from Durham doesn't hurt his reputation or injure him.

Sid, are the statements defamatory?

Kenny, are the statements defamatory?


Clearly, you fail to understand. First, the claim by WRAL-5 News that I'm a Durham man is false! WRAL did knowingly made the false statement not for the purpose of defaming, but for the purpose of misleading. By saying I'm a Durham man, rather than the Raleigh man that I am, it makes the average reader more inclined to believe that I was involved with the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case that took place in Durham. That statement was meant to mislead, not to defame.

The seriously problematic falsehood made by WRAL-5 News in the online article is that my lawsuit, upon which Judge Eagles chastised me, was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case instead of the 2010 Duke discrimination case... a case which the media has conspired to conceal from the public.

Consider yourself elucidated.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

"Hey, A Lawyer.

Unfortunately, it seems as though the so-called "short form" is as susceptible to judicial abuse as is the Motion to Dismiss. The reason Collins used the short-form in his Order is that he had no legal justification to substantiate his ruling.

Sidney, you can't tell the difference between legal justification and illegal obfuscation, as is evidenced by all the obfuscation in which you indulge.

"My question for you is this: Do you, A Lawyer, believe that the four statements at issue in the July 4, 2016 WRAL-5 News online article are true? (The statements in question being: 1. Harr is a Durham man; 2. Harr's lawsuits in which Eagles ruled were about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case; 3. Harr believes that authorities falsified the autopsy report of Daye; and 4. Harr believes he was kicked out of Duke for supporting - conducting activity of some sort - Mike Nifong.)"

Your question should have been, were they defamatory. Just because they were incorrect and you don't like them does not make them defamatory, as has been explained to you.

"First, tell me if you believe the article was accurate or misleading, and then let me know if you believe it should be corrected."

Again the question is, were they defamatory.

August 10, 2017 at 11:59 AM


Hah! Can't even answer a simple question. With regards to the "Durham man" wording, neither could WRAL-5 News' defense attorney.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

"Rules, like laws, are man-made... they are not God-given commandments handed down from the heavens like manna. What is lacking in the Order by Collins is justice."

Sidney you do not know what justice is, as is evidenced by the title of your blog. You would call it justice for Iifong that his law license be restred and his ethics convictions and contempt conviction be overturned. True Justice for Nifong would have been a felony conviction, a lengthy prison sentence and a six or seven million dollar fine.

Ergo, you are not capable of understanding the justice in the Order by Collins.

August 10, 2017 at 11:54 AM


Hah! No one can understand the "justice" in the four sentence, two paragraph, one page short-form generic Order by Collins. Collins cannot only not find common sense justification for his Order, but he cannot find legal citations or foundation for his Order.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Except go do some research - which I know you won't - State Court Judges don't do opinions like Federal Judges. Go look in all the cases where the Judge granted a 12(b)(6) and in 99% of them, the Order will be almost identical to the one in your case.

You are the worst kind of advocate - you know you have nothing, so you scream racism and hope it scares people into caving. You are a disgrace.

August 10, 2017 at 9:44 AM


If your statistics given are correct, what that tells me is that the majority of cases where the Motion to Dismiss were granted are invalid and cannot be substantiated by law.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous A Lawyer said...
First, tell me if you believe the article was accurate or misleading, and then let me know if you believe it should be corrected.

If you keep asking the wrong question, you will keep getting the wrong answer.

Even if the article was inaccurate or misleading, there is nothing a court can do about that, under the First Amendment, unless it is also legally defamatory.

The statement that you are a "Durham man" is inaccurate but not defamatory. A good editor would have published a correction, but failure to do so is not legally actionable.

Your lawsuits against Duke mention the 2006 lacrosse case in the very first paragraph, so in some sense they are "about" that case. Otherwise, why mention them?

I believe you have said that the autopsy was falsified, haven't you?

And the fourth statement is certainly true.


August 10, 2017 at 8:05 AM


Hey, A Lawyer.

Thanks for replying. With regard to the "Durham man" wording, we are in complete agreement. No argument there.

However, your logic escapes me with regards to the object of my 2011 lawsuit against Duke. First of all, we can agree that in that criminal case I had no standing.
Second of all, we can agree that in the lengthy long-form Eagles Order chastising, there was no mention of the Duke lacrosse case, no mention of the Duke lacrosse defendants individually or as a group, no mention of former Durham D.A. Mike Nifong, and no mention of Crystal Mangum.
Third, and lastly of all, it doesn't matter whether or not I mentioned the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case in the first sentence of my initial 2011 brief or in the last sentence of it... the fact remains that it was necessary to lay the groundwork for the lawsuit. For the court to understand the motivations behind the Duke University's 2010 discriminatory actions against me, I had to lay the groundwork regarding the 2006 Duke lacrosse case.

Consider yourself elucidated... long-form.

Anonymous said...

You are the one who doesn't understand - you can only sue if it's defamatory, not if it's just false and misleading. It's not illegal to say false things about people - it's only illegal to say defamatory things about them.

Your comment above that it isn't defamatory, just misleading is exactly why you lost your lawsuit - you admit there is no defamation.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"The seriously problematic falsehood made by WRAL-5 News in the online article is that my lawsuit, upon which Judge Eagles chastised me, was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case instead of the 2010 Duke discrimination case... a case which the media has conspired to conceal from the public."

As has been pointed out to you, in your filings against Duke you alleged that there was a conspiracy on the part of Duke to discriminate against you because of your advocacy for Nifong, which advocacy happened because you objected to how Nifong was treated after the Duke Rape HOAX imploded. Your frivolous, vexatious, non meritorious lawsuits WERE a consequence of the Duke Rape HOAX and your reaction to it.

"Consider yourself elucidated"

An individual who is incapable or receiving elucidation is incapable of dispensing it.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Hah! Can't even answer a simple question. With regards to the "Durham man" wording, neither could WRAL-5 News' defense attorney."

HAH yourself.

You consider yourself a dispenser of elucidation. Yet you can not see that calling you a "Durham man" was not defamatory.

Consider yourself elucidated. However you have shown yourself resistant to elucidation.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Third, and lastly of all, it doesn't matter whether or not I mentioned the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case in the first sentence of my initial 2011 brief or in the last sentence of it... the fact remains that it was necessary to lay the groundwork for the lawsuit. For the court to understand the motivations behind the Duke University's 2010 discriminatory actions against me, I had to lay the groundwork regarding the 2006 Duke lacrosse case."

You have just admitted that your frivolous, vexatious, non meritorious lawsuits against Duke were a consequence of the Duke Rape HOAX.

At least try to consider yourself elucidated.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Except go do some research - which I know you won't - State Court Judges don't do opinions like Federal Judges. Go look in all the cases where the Judge granted a 12(b)(6) and in 99% of them, the Order will be almost identical to the one in your case.

You are the worst kind of advocate - you know you have nothing, so you scream racism and hope it scares people into caving. You are a disgrace.

August 10, 2017 at 9:44 AM


If your statistics given are correct, what that tells me is that the majority of cases where the Motion to Dismiss were granted are invalid and cannot be substantiated by law."

As your repeated attempts to enrich yourself by filing frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits documents, you are completely incapable of comprehending what is or is not substantiated by law. Just like you are incapable of comprehending whether or not an autopsy result was fabricated.

Anonymous said...

lSidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

"Rules, like laws, are man-made... they are not God-given commandments handed down from the heavens like manna. What is lacking in the Order by Collins is justice."

Sidney you do not know what justice is, as is evidenced by the title of your blog. You would call it justice for Iifong that his law license be restred and his ethics convictions and contempt conviction be overturned. True Justice for Nifong would have been a felony conviction, a lengthy prison sentence and a six or seven million dollar fine.

Ergo, you are not capable of understanding the justice in the Order by Collins.

August 10, 2017 at 11:54 AM


Hah! No one can understand the 'justice' in the four sentence, two paragraph, one page short-form generic Order by Collins. Collins cannot only not find common sense justification for his Order, but he cannot find legal citations or foundation for his Order."

Maybe you got something right here. YOU can not understand the justice in the order(you failed to present a valid claim). YOU are a no one, or in other terms, you are a NOBODY trying to pass yourself off a an important personage.

Anonymous said...

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Anonymous said...

Sidney or Kenny or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.

Anonymous said...

Sidney or Kenny or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.

Anonymous said...

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Nifong Supporter said...


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

Question: Do you think that it is appropriate for a Pro Se Plaintiff in a civil case to be served notice of the judge's Order by the attorney for the defendant and not the Wake County Clerk of Court's Office? Do you believe that is appropriate? I would be interested in hearing your opinions on this issue.

As you were.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Why do you think it not inappropriate for you to file so many frivolous, non meritorious, vexatious lawsuits?

Why do you think it appropriate to call Crystal the "victim/accuser in the Duke Rape case" when you have zero evidence she was ever raped, zero evidence she ever told the truth when she claimed she was raped?

Every time you do that you do proclaim the falsely accused Lacrosse players guilty, so why is that appropriate?

You call Nifong a decent, honorable minister of justice when it is apparent, grossly apparent, that he wrongfully prosecuted innocent men, so why was that appropriate?

Shan Carter chased down and shot a fellow drug dealer while that fellow drug dealer was fleeing and in the process killed an innocent 8 year old boy and you call that self defense.

You do not even know what the word appropriate means.

You haven't known what was appropriate in a lon time.

Anonymous said...

Sid asked,

"Do you think that it is appropriate for a Pro Se Plaintiff in a civil case to be served notice of the judge's Order by the attorney for the defendant and not the Wake County Clerk of Court's Office?"

I don't see why not, if the rules of the court allow for it. Look it up, or ask an attorney if this was acceptable service, or contact the court clerk and tell them that you never received a copy of the order from them, and see what they tell you. If you are interested in an answer to your question, there are many ways to get one. I sense, however, that you are just looking for something to complain about and an pretext for claiming your rights have been violated.

This really is much ado about nothing. You have a copy of the order. If you are going to appeal it you should go ahead and file your notice of appeal. Whether the order was properly served on you would only be an issue if you missed the deadline to file an appeal and you were claiming it was because you never received notice of the entry of the order from which you were appealing.

By the way, if you appeal you are going to lose the appeal, too.

A Lawyer said...

I agree 100% with Annon. at 8:40 AM, as to allof his/her points.

There are many states where court clerks do not give notice; I don't know if NC is one of them. It is common in California state court for an order to say at the end, "[winning party] to give notice."

Anonymous said...

Sidney or Kenny or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.

Anonymous said...

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Vicky Gallas said...

It has been years since I looked closely at this case. Just came across your blog and must say that I have always viewed Mike Nifong as one of the few good guys in the system. In my opinion, he had some misdirection in Crystal Mangum's case and made some mistakes, but almost all of it can be attributed to the original investigating officers and the serious errors they made.

I am an unlikely supporter of both Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum, but I do have extensive experience with escorts and more experience than most with prosecutors. Both were railroaded in the system of injustice that we're stuck with in the US.

A bit off topic, but why do you allow all of the anonymous troll comments to publish? Don't let anyone attack you on your own blog unless they want to attach a real name to it. No trolls that hide behind anonymity should be your motto, because they've really ruined the blog, which was what they all intended, no doubt.

Best to you!

Anonymous said...

Sidney or Kenny posts as Vicky Gallas to create the illusion that they have support.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Vicky Gallas said


"It has been years since I looked closely at this case. Just came across your blog and must say that I have always viewed Mike Nifong as one of the few good guys in the system. In my opinion, he had some misdirection in Crystal Mangum's case and made some mistakes, but almost all of it can be attributed to the original investigating officers and the serious errors they made."

Nifong took control of the investigation, ALL the errors were Nifong's errors. I will say this again. Crystal alleged a brutal gang rape in which multiple assailants penetrated her and left bodily fluids on her. Check out http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/06/crystal-gail-mangum-april-6-2006.html. If that crime had happened at he party, then the DNA of her assailants would have been found. The only DNA found on Crystal's person did not match the DNA of anyone who attended the party. The only physical finding on the exam was diffuse vaginal edema, which was not pathognomonic of rape. There was zero evidence that Crystal was raped. Nifong knew there was no evidence of a rape. He prosecuted anyway, to further his political ambitions. The only ones who were subjected to railroading were the three men who were indicted.

"I am an unlikely supporter of both Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum, but I do have extensive experience with escorts and more experience than most with prosecutors. Both were railroaded in the system of injustice that we're stuck with in the US.

I say again, the only people subjected to railroading were the three innocent men who were indicted.

"A bit off topic, but why do you allow all of the anonymous troll comments to publish? Don't let anyone attack you on your own blog unless they want to attach a real name to it. No trolls that hide behind anonymity should be your motto, because they've really ruined the blog, which was what they all intended, no doubt."

I guess that is so if you consider calling out Sidney and Kenny for their lies and misinformation ruining the blog. If you do believe that Crystal was raped, explain why there was no evidence of a rape, why she could not RELIABLY identify any member of the Lacrosse team as an assailant.

Nifong Supporter said...


Vicky Gallas said...
It has been years since I looked closely at this case. Just came across your blog and must say that I have always viewed Mike Nifong as one of the few good guys in the system. In my opinion, he had some misdirection in Crystal Mangum's case and made some mistakes, but almost all of it can be attributed to the original investigating officers and the serious errors they made.

I am an unlikely supporter of both Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum, but I do have extensive experience with escorts and more experience than most with prosecutors. Both were railroaded in the system of injustice that we're stuck with in the US.

A bit off topic, but why do you allow all of the anonymous troll comments to publish? Don't let anyone attack you on your own blog unless they want to attach a real name to it. No trolls that hide behind anonymity should be your motto, because they've really ruined the blog, which was what they all intended, no doubt.

Best to you!

August 13, 2017 at 9:38 PM


Hey, Vicky.

Thank you for your very kind and supportive words. It is so refreshing yet rare to get such an intelligent and insightful comment.

Although I have been working hard and unsuccessful for six years to get justice for Crystal Mangum, I feel that I am on the verge... hopeful that she will be released from confinement in a month or two.

Aside from the legal system, I hold the mainstream media almost as culpable for the lack of justice in this case. Ms. Mangum and Mr. Nifong have both been unfairly ostracized by the media-types... with WRAL-5 News defaming me to the point where I was forced to file a lawsuit against it. Most people have preconceived notions about Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong molded by media coverage. Crystal is a very kind, generous, pleasant young mother of three who people are surprised to see, after meeting her, that she is nothing like the monster portrayed in the media. I believe that if you had the opportunity to meet with her, it is likely that you would be a supporter of her, as am I.

With regards to the trolls... a perplexing problem. I hate that the troll comments may diminish the enjoyment of the site for many... many of their comments being spiteful, illogical, and baseless. And the trolls lack the courage to identify themselves, as you did. However, I have chosen to be more liberal with the commenters... in part to get documentation of the thoughts of the haters. Personal attacks on my person are well tolerated, however, at the wise urging of kenhyderal and a few other responsible commenters, I have instituted a policy to remove the most heinous, vile, and racist comments.

Again, thank you for visiting the blog site and contributing with a comment to make it better. I welcome your future involvement.

Nifong Supporter said...


Note: In the above comment Vicky states that she is a supporter of Nifong and Mangum (though an unlikely one), whereas my incorrect interpretation in answering is that she unlikely to be a supporter of Nifong and Mangum. Mistake on my part.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Hey, Vicky.

Thank you for your very kind and supportive words. It is so refreshing yet rare to get such an intelligent and insightful comment."

Said comment was anything but insightful. Not surprising that would be your opinion since you, yourself are totally lacking insight.

"Although I have been working hard and unsuccessful for six years to get justice for Crystal Mangum, I feel that I am on the verge... hopeful that she will be released from confinement in a month or two."

You forgot to mention how many years you have devoted to advocating injustice for the men Crystal falsely accused of raping her, how many times you have referred to her as the"victim accuser in the Duke rape case" when she was the victimizer/false accuser in the Duke rape HOAX, which referrals, each and every one of them, are proclamations of guilt on the part of the falsely accused men. In any event, Crystal received justice when she was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye. And I ask again, in the past 6 years how many times have you predicted you were onthe verge of having Crystal released. She is still incarcerated.

"Aside from the legal system, I hold the mainstream media almost as culpable for the lack of justice in this case. Ms. Mangum and Mr. Nifong have both been unfairly ostracized by the media-types... with WRAL-5 News defaming me to the point where I was forced to file a lawsuit against it. Most people have preconceived notions about Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong molded by media coverage. Crystal is a very kind, generous, pleasant young mother of three who people are surprised to see, after meeting her, that she is nothing like the monster portrayed in the media. I believe that if you had the opportunity to meet with her, it is likely that you would be a supporter of her, as am I."

Yet another expression of your delusional behavior.

"With regards to the trolls... a perplexing problem. I hate that the troll comments may diminish the enjoyment of the site for many... many of their comments being spiteful, illogical, and baseless. And the trolls lack the courage to identify themselves, as you did. However, I have chosen to be more liberal with the commenters... in part to get documentation of the thoughts of the haters. Personal attacks on my person are well tolerated, however, at the wise urging of kenhyderal and a few other responsible commenters, I have instituted a policy to remove the most heinous, vile, and racist comments."

Which means really you can't handle the truth.

"Again, thank you for visiting the blog site and contributing with a comment to make it better. I welcome your future involvement."

So do I.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Aside from the legal system, I hold the mainstream media almost as culpable for the lack of justice in this case. Ms. Mangum and Mr. Nifong have both been unfairly ostracized by the media-types... with WRAL-5 News defaming me to the point where I was forced to file a lawsuit against it."

WRAL, as has been explained to you on multiple occasions, did not defame you. How were you forced to file a lawsuit? Did anyone hold a gun to your head and threaten to kill you if you did not file a lawsuit? You filed a lawsuit, playing the race card, hoping to pocket a huge settlement, that is my opinion.

And you document you lack the capability of insight.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Most people have preconceived notions about Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong molded by media coverage."

The notions were not preconceived. The notions developed after information surfaced that Nifong had concealed exculpatory evidence from the defense, that the only male DNA found on Crystal's person, following her allegation of a gang rape in which multiple assailants, not wearing condoms, had penetrated her and deposited bodily fluids on her did not match the DNA of anyone who was present at the scene of the alleged crime at the time the alleged crime allegedly happened.

Also, Crystal could not reliably identify any member of the Lacrosse team as an assailant(certainty does not equal reliability). She told multiple, conflicting stories of what happened to her. When she was finally interviewed by Nifong's DA Office, almost 9 months after the alleged crime allegedly happened, she could not recall being penetrated.

Crystal and Nifong discredited themselves.

Yet another example of your lack of capability for insight.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:


"With regards to the trolls... a perplexing problem. I hate that the troll comments may diminish the enjoyment of the site for many... many of their comments being spiteful, illogical, and baseless."

One comment you repeatedly make, which is legally totally baseless and meaningless, is, "no one ever proved Crystal lied about being raped".

I remind you again, when someone accuses someone of a crime, it is the obligation of the Prosecution, in this case of the Duke Rape HOAX, Nifong, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime happened and that the accused was the perpetrator. You have presented zero evidence that the crime happened. Since there was zero evidence that the crime happened, there was zero probable cause to prosecute anyone for the alleged crime.

If I recall correctly there have been posters here, including Kenny, who say the case should have gone to trial.

Yet more documentation that neither you nor whatever supporters you might have manifest the capability of insight.

Anonymous said...

Stick with Vicky, Sid -- she'll teach you how to set up an escort service so Crystal will have a job when she gets out of prison....

Anonymous said...

Question: Do you think that it is appropriate for a Pro Se Plaintiff in a civil case to be served notice of the judge's Order by the attorney for the defendant and not the Wake County Clerk of Court's Office? Do you believe that is appropriate? I would be interested in hearing your opinions on this issue.

As you were.


It's not uncommon for the prevailing party to be asked to serve the other parties. And, since the appeal period does not being until they do, it helps.

You are grasping at straws - things you question are routine. The key is you get service, you got it. Stop whining.

Anonymous said...

Sidney or Kenny or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.

Nifong Supporter said...


KENHYDERAL DOCTRINE violation: The post August 14, 2017 at 10:27 PM has been deleted.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Stick with Vicky, Sid -- she'll teach you how to set up an escort service so Crystal will have a job when she gets out of prison....

August 14, 2017 at 6:17 AM


Anony, Hardy-harr-harr. So funny, I almost forgot to laugh.

One thing is certain... Vicky has more balls than you because she has the courage to back up her comments with her true name and face.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"nonymous Anonymous said...
Stick with Vicky, Sid -- she'll teach you how to set up an escort service so Crystal will have a job when she gets out of prison....

August 14, 2017 at 6:17 AM


Anony, Hardy-harr-harr. So funny, I almost forgot to laugh.

One thing is certain... Vicky has more balls than you because she has the courage to back up her comments with her true name and face."

Rather, Miss Vicky is as deluded as Sidney and as resistant to elucidation and enlightenment as Sidney and Sidney has finally found a possible soul mate.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Question: Do you think that it is appropriate for a Pro Se Plaintiff in a civil case to be served notice of the judge's Order by the attorney for the defendant and not the Wake County Clerk of Court's Office? Do you believe that is appropriate? I would be interested in hearing your opinions on this issue.

As you were.


It's not uncommon for the prevailing party to be asked to serve the other parties. And, since the appeal period does not being until they do, it helps.

You are grasping at straws - things you question are routine. The key is you get service, you got it. Stop whining.

August 14, 2017 at 2:05 PM


Hah. Is the court so underfunded that it has to ask one party of a civil lawsuit to inform the opposing party of the court's ruling? Doesn't make sense. First of all, Attorney Martin never mentioned that she was asked by the court to inform me of the ruling. She does, however mention that she had previously informed the court that I was filing the case as a Pro Se plaintiff... something that the court evidently chose to ignore.

Keep in mind that it was not the court's intention to notify only one party. Clearly from the Certificate of Service, the court sent the Order intended for the plaintiff to a Charlotte attorney. (I have yet to receive a reply from the attorney in response to my queries to him about this seeming mix-up.)

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

"nonymous Anonymous said...
Stick with Vicky, Sid -- she'll teach you how to set up an escort service so Crystal will have a job when she gets out of prison....

August 14, 2017 at 6:17 AM


Anony, Hardy-harr-harr. So funny, I almost forgot to laugh.

One thing is certain... Vicky has more balls than you because she has the courage to back up her comments with her true name and face."

Rather, Miss Vicky is as deluded as Sidney and as resistant to elucidation and enlightenment as Sidney and Sidney has finally found a possible soul mate.

August 15, 2017 at 4:26 AM


I would be proud to have Vicky as a soul mate. Can't say the same for you.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Hrr:

"I would be proud to have Vicky as a soul mate. Can't say the same for you."

Why would anyone want a soulmate as biased and deluded and vicious as Miss Vicky? That you would be proud considering all the vicious delusions you promulgate, the false accuser/victimizer of the Duke Rape HOAX is the victim/accuser in the Duke rape case, Shan Carter who chased down and killed a fellow drug dealer while the fellow drug dealer was fleeing, SHAN CARTER, who in the process killed an innocent 8 year old child, acted in self defense, the men falsely accused by Crystal of rape(you have zero evidence she told the truth when she claimed she had been raped) were guilty(you proclaim that each and every time you refer to Crystal as the"victim/accuser), that Nifong, who wrongfully prosecuted the innocent men to further his political ambitions was a decent, honorable minister of justice.

Anonymous said...


Sid,

You seem to have a thing for women who work in the sex industry/human trafficking. The choice to engage in such activity rarely turns out well for anyone involved. Beyond that, it is immoral and, in many cases, illegal, too.

Anonymous said...

Did I strike a nerve, Sid? Vicky Gallas is a well known escort service manager (she's written at least 1 book on the subject), and Crystal Mangum DID work as an "escort".

I have a lot of respect for Vicky Gallas -- she survived what can only be called a vicious prosecution case that tried to declare her guilty of racketeering and her escort service a prostitution ring.

Which is why I find it odd she considers herself a Nifong Supporter, when Nifong (as we know now) has a history of prosecutorial misconduct.

With that said, I believe Vicky Gallas would be the first to admit she does not have literal "balls".




Anonymous said...

Well, Sidney, it has been verified that Miss VIcky is involved in a rather non family friendly type of business.

Anonymous said...

I understand that Kenny and Miss Vicky are close friends.

kenhyderal said...

I do not know Ms. Gallas, although, I have been to Disney World. I do agree with her contention, though, as outlined in her book "Blueprint for an Escort Service" that Crystal was surreptitiously drugged by attendees at the Duke Lacrosse Party

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"I do not know Ms. Gallas, although, I have been to Disney World. I do agree with her contention, though, as outlined in her book "Blueprint for an Escort Service" that Crystal was surreptitiously drugged by attendees at the Duke Lacrosse Party"

All that means is that she is as stupid and vicious as you are. You have zero evidence Crystal was ever raped.

Anonymous said...

Hey Kenhyderal:

Saying Miss Vicky believes Crystal was drugged is like William Cohan saying he believes something happened in the house on Buchanan Avenue, which, in turn, is like a deaf, blind man saying, I see and hear everything.

Anonymous said...

Kenny, Please provide the details of Miss Vicky's contention that Crystal was drugged at the lacrosse party.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid,

You seem to have a thing for women who work in the sex industry/human trafficking. The choice to engage in such activity rarely turns out well for anyone involved. Beyond that, it is immoral and, in many cases, illegal, too.

August 15, 2017 at 6:16 AM


No, actually I have a thing for people with courage to stand up for justice and truth. The fact that she posted her comment using her name and face on this blog site is testament to her courage.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Well, Sidney, it has been verified that Miss VIcky is involved in a rather non family friendly type of business.

August 15, 2017 at 10:29 AM


Uh, your point being..? There are a lot of businesses that are not family friendly, yet are entirely legal. To my knowledge, she is not engaged in criminal activity.

Nifong Supporter said...



Anonymous Anonymous said...
Did I strike a nerve, Sid? Vicky Gallas is a well known escort service manager (she's written at least 1 book on the subject), and Crystal Mangum DID work as an "escort".

I have a lot of respect for Vicky Gallas -- she survived what can only be called a vicious prosecution case that tried to declare her guilty of racketeering and her escort service a prostitution ring.

Which is why I find it odd she considers herself a Nifong Supporter, when Nifong (as we know now) has a history of prosecutorial misconduct.

With that said, I believe Vicky Gallas would be the first to admit she does not have literal "balls".





August 15, 2017 at 7:04 AM


Firstly, I wasn't using the "balls" term literally or anatomically... but rather metaphorically.

Secondly, you did not strike a nerve.

Thirdly, I find it admirable that you admit your respect for Ms. Gallas. Once the truths about Crystal Mangum are known and accepted by the world, I hope that you will have the metaphorical balls to express your respect for Ms. Mangum.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"No, actually I have a thing for people with courage to stand up for justice and truth. The fact that she posted her comment using her name and face on this blog site is testament to her courage."

YOU HAVE NEVER, I SAY AGAIN, NEVER STOOD U FR JUSTICE OR TRUTH!!!!

Anonymous said...

Correction:

Sidney Harr:

"No, actually I have a thing for people with courage to stand up for justice and truth. The fact that she posted her comment using her name and face on this blog site is testament to her courage."

YOU HAVE NEVER, I SAY AGAIN, NEVER STOOD UP FOR JUSTICE OR TRUTH!!!!

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Uh, your point being..? There are a lot of businesses that are not family friendly, yet are entirely legal. To my knowledge, she is not engaged in criminal activity."

So why do you willfully refuse to see the men falsely accused by Crystal did not indulge in the criminal activity of raping her !!!???.

Why do you willfully refuse to see that Crystal has a years long history of indulging in criminal activity???!!!

Anonymous said...

And while we're at it Sidney, why do you willfully refuse to see that Shan Carter indulged in some rather violent criminal activity which took the life on=f an innocent 8 year old child!!!???

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr;

"Firstly, I wasn't using the "balls" term literally or anatomically... but rather metaphorically."

So I again speak metaphorically. You, calling yourself a Nifong supporter is like you calling yourself an athletic supporter for a eunuch. You support nothing.

"Secondly, you did not strike a nerve."

Yes the poster did.

"Thirdly, I find it admirable that you admit your respect for Ms. Gallas. Once the truths about Crystal Mangum are known and accepted by the world, I hope that you will have the metaphorical balls to express your respect for Ms. Mangum."

The truths about crystal are known, that she was the victimizer/false accuser in the Duke Rape HOAX, AND SHE MURDERED REGINALD DAYE.

kenhyderal said...

http://blueprintforanescortservice.blogspot.ca/search?q=mangum For Anonymous at 3:30 AM 8-16-2017

guiowen said...

In other words, Vicky just figures Crystal's behavior was very strange, so that she must have been drugged. So why didn't the DNA test give some positive results?

FakeKenhyderal said...

Ms Gallo does NOT state "that Crystal was surreptitiously drugged by attendees at the Duke Lacrosse Party" on her blog site (which is (I should point out entirely different from her book).

She DOES state "While I do not pretend to know who specifically assaulted Crystal Mangum or even whether it happened at that party or at earlier calls she was dispatched to..."

Kenny, you owe the readers here (and Ms Gallo specifically) an apology for this baldfaced lie.

guiowen said...

To Fake KH,
Forget it, Kenny never apologizes. He'll just accuse you and me of an ad hominem attack.

kenhyderal said...

@ Guiowen The DNA Tests?? Crystal herself was tested for alcohol, opioids cocaine and GHB. All were negative. The drink she was given was long gone and unavailable for testing. The symptoms she experienced, sudden onset and sudden and precipitous recovery after an hour or so leaving no trace is consistent with the date rape drug chloral hydrate. Tests for this are difficult and were not routinely done at that time and this was well known on university campuses especially by those with nefarious intent. I'm quite sure Ms Gallas was not offended in any way by what I wrote but hey lets ask her if she comes by again

kenhyderal said...

Fake KH: You throw about the term liar quite freely. Remember it was I who posted the link. This reminds me of the time I was accused of plagiarism only after I provided a link to the Sri Lanka newspaper article I referenced but failed to attribute. Everyone knows there is a double standard at work here one for those who support Crystal and DA Nifong and one for those who are Duke Lacrosse apologists

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"@ Guiowen The DNA Tests?? Crystal herself was tested for alcohol, opioids cocaine and GHB. All were negative. The drink she was given was long gone and unavailable for testing. The symptoms she experienced, sudden onset and sudden and precipitous recovery after an hour or so leaving no trace is consistent with the date rape drug chloral hydrate. Tests for this are difficult and were not routinely done at that time and this was well known on university campuses especially by those with nefarious intent. I'm quite sure Ms Gallas was not offended in any way by what I wrote but hey lets ask her if she comes by again"

Kenny, yet again, tries to bullshit his way through and around facts. Check this out again: http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/06/crystal-gail-mangum-april-6-2006.html.

Again, for hard of comprehension Kenhyderal: Crystal alleged a gang rape at which multiple assailants, not using condoms, penetrated her and left their bodily fluids on her. Their DNA should have been found on her(your multiple obfuscating obfuscations notwithstanding). The only male DNA found on her person following the party did not match any of the men identified as attending the party. That adds up to zero evidence Crystal was raped.

So far as your fixation on the possibility of unidentified party attendees, you have offered zero evidence there were any. Yes there is your claim that kilgo told you a lacrosse player told him he had witnessed non lacrosse players at the party raping Crystal, that is double hearsay which adds up to more zero evidence. You have offered zero evidence kilgo, whoever or whatever kilgo might be, ever communicated that information to you.

Let's here it for Kenny the great ZERO!!!

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal:
I asked you about DNA. You (probably on purpose) decided to talk about opioids, cocaine, etc.
Why don't you ever answer questions asked?

kenhyderal said...

The topic was Ms. Gallas's opinion that Crystal had most likely been drugged. She herself stated she had no opinion about the who and where of the rape but if you want to talk about DNA; DNA unexplained by Crystal's consensual sexual history was in fact found. As Dr. Anonymous states that DNA did not match anyone IDENTIFIED as being at the party. The obvious problem here is how were those in attendance identified and who were they. Is there a list of those present at the time of the alleged rape? Lacrosse Players not present and even out of State at the time were tested. Huh? Why? Red herring? Anyone ever seen a true list of attendees? Anybody maintain that such a list exists? Only two non-Players present; two who happened to appear in photographs of a drugged Crystal fighting impairment and trying to do her job;yeah sure.

guiowen said...

Crystal was drunk, not drugged.
In fact, Crystal's customers (at her escort service) were NOT tested for DNA. I think if you in fact tested all these customers, you might find a very good explanation for the "unexplained" DNA. That Mike Nifong (one of the good guys, according to Vicky Gallas) did not bother to test such people says much about him.

kenhyderal said...

Guiowen said:...
"Crystal was drunk, not drugged:....................... Not according to three independent witnesses. They say she arrive unimpaired. No sign of intoxication until she consumed a drink handed to her in the bathroom.

Anonymous said...

Kenhydral:

"The topic was Ms. Gallas's opinion that Crystal had most likely been drugged. She herself stated she had no opinion about the who and where of the rape but if you want to talk about DNA; DNA unexplained by Crystal's consensual sexual history was in fact found. As Dr. Anonymous states that DNA did not match anyone IDENTIFIED as being at the party. The obvious problem here is how were those in attendance identified and who were they. Is there a list of those present at the time of the alleged rape? Lacrosse Players not present and even out of State at the time were tested. Huh? Why? Red herring? Anyone ever seen a true list of attendees? Anybody maintain that such a list exists? Only two non-Players present; two who happened to appear in photographs of a drugged Crystal fighting impairment and trying to do her job;yeah sure."

Kenhyderal continues to be a big zero trying to bullshit his way around and through facts. There is zero evidence there ever were any unidentified party attendees, just like there is zero evidence that Crystal was ever raped.

Which raises the issue again, why does Kenny get such a charge out of believing Crystal had been raped.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Guiowen said:...
Guiowen said:...
"Crystal was drunk, not drugged:....................... Not according to three independent witnesses. They say she arrive unimpaired. No sign of intoxication until she consumed a drink handed to her in the bathroom."

There were people, who had no crime to cover up who said Crystal was drunk when she arrived. Again, there is zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped.

Yet again Kenny tries to bullshit his way through and around the facts.

Anonymous said...

Kenny:

If you remember, I put this issue to you:

After the party, Kim Roberts/Pittman and Crystal drove away together. Kim called 911, not to report a rape but to claim that she and her girlfriend were driving by the Buchanan Avenue house and people at the house called them "n---er_. Then she drove Crystal, not to a police station or to a hospital but to a grocery store where she asked a security guard to forcibly remove her from her car.

I asked you why Kim did not report a rape or drive Crystal to a police station or to a hospital. Your answer was that Kim was probably unaware that a rape had happened

Go to: http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/06/crystal-gail-mangum-april-6-2006.html.

According to her hand written statement given to the police, Kim Pittman/Rogers was aware that Crystal had been pulled into the bathroom, Crystal said that Kim asked her if anyone had hurt her, and she told Kim she had been.

So why did Kim not drive her to a police station or to a hospital.

The answer: Crystal was not raped.

Again, Kenny, the big zero, tries to bullshit his way through and around facts.

Anonymous said...

Udaman Kenny.

Fake Kenhyderal said...

Kenny - I notice you edited your post after I corrected your false representation of Ms Gallas' comments without admitting your error. Perhaps she should sue you for libel...
Ms Gallas I apologize for incorrectly identifying you as "Ms Gallo".

See how easy that is?

Anonymous said...

I think we can all agree that kenhyderal has shown himself to be a liar many times in his posts on his blog.

Malek Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996

kenhyderal said...

Many times eh! Why don't you sight an example.

guiowen said...

Kenny,
Remember that time I called you on something, and you denied it totally? You then claimed that you didn't recall what you had said because it was somehow "out of context"?

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal:

"Many times eh! Why don't you sight an example."

When you say Crystal was raped, having zero evidence.

When you say there were unidentified party attendees when you have zero evidence.

Saying members of the lacrosse team were complicit in the rape of Crystl when you have zero evidence the rape ever happened.

When you say Nifong was seeking justice for Crystal when he was just seeking his own reelection.

To name a few.

Plus you can not verify that Kilgo ever told you anything about the Lacrosse party and have come up with two explanations of when he told you, indicating you fabricated that story.

Anonymous said...

Still no apology for misquoting Vicky Gallas?
Shame on you, Kenny......

kenhyderal said...

@ Guiowen: Be more specific @ Dr. Anonymous: Me believing something that you believe not to be true does not constitute a lie. I believe you are very wrong but I can not and do not call you a liar. @ Anonymous: If Ms. Gallas believes I owe her an apology I will certainly deliver one to her

Anonymous said...

It's not just Ms Gallas you owe an apology to, Kenny -- you misquoted here in an effort to advance your agenda, and when called out on it, you hid it like a little bitch...

Anonymous said...

kenhydeeral:

"Dr. Anonymous: Me believing something that you believe not to be true does not constitute a lie. I believe you are very wrong but I can not and do not call you a liar."

The difference is, the evidence SHOWS you are wrong.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "It's not just Ms Gallas you owe an apology to, Kenny -- you misquoted here in an effort to advance your agenda, and when called out on it, you hid it like a little bitch"..................... No, ANONYMOUS, I Ken Edwards, unlike you, don't hide. Tell us, though, what was the "misquote" of Ms. Gallas I supposedly made. I have deleted no posts in this thread. The only time I ever delete a post is if I discover I have made a typing error and this deletion will show immediately preceding my corrected post as "deleted by the author"

Anonymous said...

Udaman Kenny.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 545   Newer› Newest»