Thursday, January 4, 2018

Crystal Mangum's Complaint for Malicious Prosecution

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another figment of Sidney's feverish delusional megalomaniacal imagination

Anonymous said...

Sidney you do not have to concern yourself with the Einstein quote. people are doing a lot about the evil you are trying to work on behalf of your and Kenny's fascination with the idea that Crystal had been raped

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

More of your hypocrisy when you rant and rave about the Grand Jury.

As many posters have informed you, the larceny was never in play during the trial.

You seem to approve of Nifong's seeking of Grand Jury indictments against the Lacrosse defendants. I remind you that Crystal alleged that three members of the Lacrosse team had raped her and deposited their bodily fluids on her. The only male DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team(which IS incontrovertible evidence that Crystal DID lie). You DO presume the Lacrosse players were guilty. Had Nifong presented the Grand Jury with the NTO , which stated that the DNA results would identify the perpetrators of the alleged crime and exonerate rhe innocent, and the DNA results from DNA security, the Drand Jury would have declined to indict.

Now, maybe, like your wacko-lyte Kenny, you will claim that Nifong did not have them indicted for rape.

January 4, 2018 at 3:27 AM


Hey, Anony.

I agree that the larceny charge was never in play in the trial. Its purpose was to support the murder charge being first degree. The prosecution was aware that it obviously lacked probable cause. It was, in fact, malicious prosecution. And because Officer Marianne Bond's testimony was impeached, and she was the sole witness before the grand jury, the entirety of her testimony (including that about the murder charge), should be rescinded and Mangum afforded a new trial.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr

"Almost without exception, people who file in civil court seek cash."

I recall, after Crystal published her screed which she tried to pass off as a book, Vincent Clark had a blog up about her and her book. I commented on that blog, if Crystal had been raped why she did not file a civil suit. Clark said it was not about money. It seems Crystal has changed her attitude, maybe reverted to her attitude in the Duke Rape HOAX, that the rich white boys would be paying her.

January 4, 2018 at 1:21 AM


Anony, you are allowing the media to manipulate your mind. For example, when the three Duke Lacrosse defendants (after having scored an easy $20 mil from Duke University for who knows what) tried to extort $10 mil from the city of Durham (for who knows what) the media never said that they were after "cash."

The fact is that for the case to be heard in Superior Civil Court the damages have to be greater than $25,000.00. By General Assembly rules on compensation for wrongful compensation at $75,000.00 per each year of wrongful incarceration, Mangum is surely deserving of more than $25,000.00. The news article headline makes the lawsuit appear to be about money. The truth is that the lawsuit filed by Mangum is about justice.

Consider yourself elucidated.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr again shows he is seriously and megalo-maniaclly delusional.

Sidney, how are you and Crystal going to pay for the discovery process.

I hope your suit gets to the discovery process because Crystal will have to submit to being deposed and having to prove her claim she had been raped at the Lacrosse party, Her cause of action is that she was maliciously prosecuted because she had accused people of raping her. She can't. She will not get a pass on this by asserting no one proved she had lied about being raped. Her obligation will be to prove she had been raped.

And I wonder, with you acting as her advisor, whether or not you will claim compensation in the rather seriously unlikely event that a court awards her some money, like a lawyer handling a case on a contingency fee basis. You have shown a propensity to try to enrich yourself via the legal system.

January 4, 2018 at 1:18 AM


What discovery, Anony? The evidence to support Mangum's claims regarding the lack of probable cause which buttresses her Malicious Prosecution complaint is the April 4, 2011 Bond interview with Reginald Daye and the April 18, 2011 Grand Jury Indictments on the Larceny of Chose in Action. The case is cut and dried. Sorry to disappoint you.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr, you again say there is no proof Crystal lied. You lie. I again refer you to the written statement she gave to the Durham police in which she alleged she was gang raped by three members of the Duke Lacrosse team who penetrated her and deposited their bodily fluids on her, meaning their DNA. The only male DNA recovered from Crystal's person did not match the DNA of any member of the Duke Lacrosse team. I remind you that the NTO obtained by Nifong's DA office said the DNA would identify the alleged perpetrators of the alleged rape. Thar IS incntrovertible evidence that Crystal DID lie.

In any event, your assertion that no one has proven Crystal had lied has no legal weight. For Crystal to make her case, considering her complaint, she would have to prove she had told the truth, and she can not.

Further Crystal omits information that she never mentioned rape until she was taken to the Durham Access center for involuntary commitment for detoxifiction, after a nurse asked her if she had been raped.

More evidence that Crystal lied. In her police statement, Crystal alleged she had told Kim Roberts/Pittman that she had been raped. After Kim drove away from the party house with Crystal in her car, she did call 911 but not to report a rape but to report that while she and her black girlfriend were either walking or driving past the party house, people at the house had called her and her girlfriend n---er. Then she drove Crystal not to a police station or to a hospital but to a grocery store parking lot and asked a security guard to forcibly remove Crystal from her car. That is not how a woman acts when another woman tells her she had been raped, especially when, according to Crystal, Kim had been assaulted.

More of you trying to bullshit your way through and around facts which do not mesh with your guilt presumption.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

More of your hypocrisy when you rant and rave about the Grand Jury.

As many posters have informed you, the larceny was never in play during the trial.

You seem to approve of Nifong's seeking of Grand Jury indictments against the Lacrosse defendants. I remind you that Crystal alleged that three members of the Lacrosse team had raped her and deposited their bodily fluids on her. The only male DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team(which IS incontrovertible evidence that Crystal DID lie). You DO presume the Lacrosse players were guilty. Had Nifong presented the Grand Jury with the NTO , which stated that the DNA results would identify the perpetrators of the alleged crime and exonerate rhe innocent, and the DNA results from DNA security, the Drand Jury would have declined to indict.

Now, maybe, like your wacko-lyte Kenny, you will claim that Nifong did not have them indicted for rape.

January 4, 2018 at 3:27 AM


Hey, Anony.

I agree that the larceny charge was never in play in the trial. Its purpose was to support the murder charge being first degree. The prosecution was aware that it obviously lacked probable cause. It was, in fact, malicious prosecution. And because Officer Marianne Bond's testimony was impeached, and she was the sole witness before the grand jury, the entirety of her testimony (including that about the murder charge), should be rescinded and Mangum afforded a new trial."

You delude yourself if you believe that the prosecution lacked probable cause. Crystal was indicted by a Grand Jury, which, unlike the Grand Jury which indicted the three innocent Lacrosse players, heard all the evidence.

It is the Court which decides whether or not it is fact that the prosecution was malicious, not you.

Your record of behavior regarding the Duke Lacrosse HOAX shows you can not recognize what constitutes malicious prosecution.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr

"Almost without exception, people who file in civil court seek cash."

I recall, after Crystal published her screed which she tried to pass off as a book, Vincent Clark had a blog up about her and her book. I commented on that blog, if Crystal had been raped why she did not file a civil suit. Clark said it was not about money. It seems Crystal has changed her attitude, maybe reverted to her attitude in the Duke Rape HOAX, that the rich white boys would be paying her.

January 4, 2018 at 1:21 AM


"Anony, you are allowing the media to manipulate your mind."

No I don't. I do not buy into your delusional megalomania, guilt presuming racism

"For example, when the three Duke Lacrosse defendants (after having scored an easy $20 mil from Duke University for who knows what)"

You have zero evidence they extorted "$20 mil" from Duke. Duke would not have paid off if Duke had feared the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players would have prevailed in a civil suit.

"tried to extort $10 mil from the city of Durham (for who knows what) the media never said that they were after 'cash.'"

What affected their suit against Durham, according to some accounts, was a black federal judge who believed civil rights laws do not apply to Caucasians. You are manifesting your frustration over yourfailed lawsuits against Duke, probably filed because you believed, in your delusional megalomaniacal manner, that you could easily shake Duke down for big bucks.

"The fact is that for the case to be heard in Superior Civil Court the damages have to be greater than $25,000.00. By General Assembly rules on compensation for wrongful compensation at $75,000.00 per each year of wrongful incarceration, Mangum is surely deserving of more than $25,000.00. The news article headline makes the lawsuit appear to be about money. The truth is that the lawsuit filed by Mangum is about justice."

Considering your concept of justice, i.e that innocent Caucasian men should have been presumed guilty and incarcerated simply because they were accused by a black woman, you have no concept of justice. Your advocacy for felony murderer Shan Carter shows you have no idea of what justice is.

"Consider yourself elucidated."

I say again, you, a delusional megalomaniac who is incapable of receiving elucidation, is incapable of providing any.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr again shows he is seriously and megalo-maniaclly delusional.

Sidney, how are you and Crystal going to pay for the discovery process.

I hope your suit gets to the discovery process because Crystal will have to submit to being deposed and having to prove her claim she had been raped at the Lacrosse party, Her cause of action is that she was maliciously prosecuted because she had accused people of raping her. She can't. She will not get a pass on this by asserting no one proved she had lied about being raped. Her obligation will be to prove she had been raped.

And I wonder, with you acting as her advisor, whether or not you will claim compensation in the rather seriously unlikely event that a court awards her some money, like a lawyer handling a case on a contingency fee basis. You have shown a propensity to try to enrich yourself via the legal system.

January 4, 2018 at 1:18 AM


What discovery, Anony? The evidence to support Mangum's claims regarding the lack of probable cause which buttresses her Malicious Prosecution complaint is the April 4, 2011 Bond interview with Reginald Daye and the April 18, 2011 Grand Jury Indictments on the Larceny of Chose in Action. The case is cut and dried. Sorry to disappoint you."

You will disappoint only yourself and Crystal. Both of you should be used to that by now, but you are incapable of comprehending the truth.

You have to make your case. You haven't. You, as is your wont, believe you make your allegations and the defense has to prove them.

I have been both plaintiff and defendant in personal injury suits and I can say from that experience a plaintiff has to do more than file a suit and expect it to be accepted at face value.

I will not say, consider yourself elucidated because you have never availed yourself of any opportunities for elucidation, e.g. you pathetic excuse for a medical career.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

It's been explained to you that the larceny charge cannot elevate the charge to 1st degree - it cannot trigger felony murder. If that is the basis for the lawsuit, it's clearly frivolous, and it's been explained to you why, repeatedly.

In addition, the Statute of Limitations is long gone. Even by your pathetic standards this is a pathetic lawsuit, worse than your normal.

You really are delusional.

Anonymous said...

Crystal was found NOT GUILTY of the Larceny of Chose in Action - why would you want to give her a retrial on that?

A Lawyer said...

I can't see the Complaint-- the link doesn't work for me-- but this sounds like another frivolous lawsuit.

If the suit alleges that the murder charge was malicious prosecution, it will be dismissed, because you can't sue for malicious prosecution unless you were acquitted. If the suit alleges that the larceny charge was malicious prosecution, it will be dismissed because it is barred by the statute of limitations. And even if it weren't, the relief for malicious prosecution of one charge (larceny) isn't a new trial on other charges (murder). The only way to get a new trial on the murder charge would be for Mangum to file an MAR in state court (she tried to, but Dr. Harr bungled that by taking the papers to the wrong courthouse!) or a petition for habeas corpus in federal court (which has been denied).

Another swing, another miss. And Dr. Harr's unintentional sabotaging of the MAR shows why the State Bar was right to enjoin him from unauthorized practice of law-- Mangum is worse off as a result of his efforts than if she had no representation at all. I hope they pursue their current investigation, for Mangum's sake.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Check out https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=30930:

"Discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party investigates the facts of a case, through the rules of civil procedure, by obtaining evidence from the opposing party and others by means of discovery devices including requests for answers to interrogatories, requests for production of documents and things, requests for admissions, and depositions.

Under the laws of the United States, civil discovery is broadly construed and parties to a civil action can ask for virtually any material which is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This is a much broader standard than simply relevant evidence, because it contemplates the exploration of materials and testimony that may not be directly relevant itself, but that could lead to the discovery of other evidence that would be relevant.

However, discovery is not without limits. Certain types of information are generally protected from discovery, including information which is privileged (such as attorney-client communications, trade secrets, and conversations between spouses) and the work product of the opposing party and his attorney. Other types of information may be protected, depending on the type of case and the status of the party. For instance, juvenile criminal records, certain medical and psychiatric records, etc.

Electronic discovery or "e-discovery" refers to discovery of information stored in electronic format (often referred to as Electronically Stored Information, or ESI).

It mesns that the defendants can question Ceystal in the pre trial phase and if Crystal refuses to answer questions, that could be taken into consideration by any court hearing the case. She could refuse to answer anything which might incriminate her but that would not prove any liability on the part of the defendants.

Who would question the defendants. I believe the NC Bar injunction against you would preclude you questioning anyone on her behalf.

FakeKenhyderal said...

As "A Lawyer" points out, the statute of limitations for malicious prosecution is 3 years, per N.C. GEN. STAT. § 1-52(5).

She was convicted in November 2013, correct?

So yeah, look for this latest work to be dismissed.

great work, Sid.

Anonymous said...

In addition - the theory for malicious prosecution is that the Larceny charge was used to elevate the murder via felony murder. However, as has been repeatedly shown, larceny cannot do that (even if Sid refuses to learn), so his own theory of why it was malicious is legally wrong.

Yet again another complete and total failure from Sid.

Anonymous said...

This should be fun.

Anonymous said...

Correction:

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr again shows he is seriously and megalo-maniaclly delusional.

Sidney, how are you and Crystal going to pay for the discovery process.

I hope your suit gets to the discovery process because Crystal will have to submit to being deposed and having to prove her claim she had been raped at the Lacrosse party, Her cause of action is that she was maliciously prosecuted because she had accused people of raping her. She can't. She will not get a pass on this by asserting no one proved she had lied about being raped. Her obligation will be to prove she had been raped.

And I wonder, with you acting as her advisor, whether or not you will claim compensation in the rather seriously unlikely event that a court awards her some money, like a lawyer handling a case on a contingency fee basis. You have shown a propensity to try to enrich yourself via the legal system.

January 4, 2018 at 1:18 AM


What discovery, Anony? The evidence to support Mangum's claims regarding the lack of probable cause which buttresses her Malicious Prosecution complaint is the April 4, 2011 Bond interview with Reginald Daye and the April 18, 2011 Grand Jury Indictments on the Larceny of Chose in Action. The case is cut and dried. Sorry to disappoint you."

You will disappoint only yourself and Crystal. Both of you should be used to that by now, but you are incapable of comprehending the truth.

You have to make your case. You haven't. You, as is your wont, believe you make your allegations and the defense has to DISPROVE them.

I have been both plaintiff and defendant in personal injury suits and I can say from that experience a plaintiff has to do more than file a suit and expect it to be accepted at face value.

I will not say, consider yourself elucidated because you have never availed yourself of any opportunities for elucidation, e.g. you pathetic excuse for a medical career.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

You mention Harvey Weinstein in Crystal's case. You have yet to establish the relevance of referring to Harvey Weinstein.

The evidence is overwhelming that Crystal was not a victim of any sexual assault or any sexual harassment.

Anonymous said...

The Harvey Weinstein connection is the #metoo movement. Mangum is now using that to say that she was sexually assaulted and no one believed her. Like with Weinstein, no one has proven anything at this point, but many heads have fallen.

Anonymous said...

Too bad for Crystal there isn't a "#metoo" movement for people that have received poor legal advice.

Speaking of poor legal advice -- where has Sid gone since it's been shown that the statute of limitations have passed for malicious prosecution?

Kenhyderal -- What are your thoughts?

Anonymous said...

People do not believe Crystal because the evidence is overwhelming that she was not raped. Check out the AG's report :

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/final-duke-rape-report-issued

Anonymous said...

It is utter extremely foul blasphemy for Sidney to try to equate Crystal with any woman who was molested by someone like Harvey Weinstein.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:


I brought this up before, and it has to do with Crystal's totally inappropriate identification with the me too movement, something I believe you put her up to.

With regard to Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer, once a woman accused them, a number of other women came forward to accuse,

It has been more than 10 years since Crystal falsely accused the Lacrosse players of raping her(and that no one ever proved she lied is irrelevant-neither she nor you nor Kenny have provided any evidence she told the truth), and no other women have come forward accusing the Lacrosse players of being the out of control women abusing hooligans you hae described them as.

It is not because women feared consequences from Duke. Most of Duke Univesity presumed them guilty.

I will not challenge you to prove that because that would be like challenging Hitler to show he was a humanitarian.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:


I brought this up before, and it has to do with Crystal's totally inappropriate identification with the me too movement, something I believe you put her up to.

With regard to Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer, once a woman accused them, a number of other women came forward to accuse,

It has been more than 10 years since Crystal falsely accused the Lacrosse players of raping her(and that no one ever proved she lied is irrelevant-neither she nor you nor Kenny have provided any evidence she told the truth), and no other women have come forward accusing the Lacrosse players of being the out of control women abusing hooligans you hae described them as.

It is not because women feared consequences from Duke. Most of Duke Univesity presumed them guilty.

I will not challenge you to prove that because that would be like challenging Hitler to show he was a humanitarian.

January 5, 2018 at 2:31 PM


What Crystal Mangum has in common with the #MeToo movement is that the female sexual assault victims fear coming forward (or breaking the silence) against men of power, wealth and privilege. Their reluctance to come forward is out of fear of not being believed and of being subjected to retaliation. My point is that Mangum has suffered terribly in those regards... as the mainstream media joined the accused assailants by labeling Mangum as a liar and by doing so as fact. Retaliation has been in the form of trumped up charges that resulted in a wrongful conviction... a large conspiracy of attorneys on both sides, the trial judge, and the mainstream media.

Just because multiple victims haven't followed with complaints against the Duke lacrosse athletes doesn't preclude them from having assaulted Crystal or other females.

Comprende?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
People do not believe Crystal because the evidence is overwhelming that she was not raped. Check out the AG's report :

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/final-duke-rape-report-issued

January 5, 2018 at 7:55 AM


The question is why won't the AG speak to me about my concerns about injustices against Crystal Mangum? By refusing to communicate with me, his bias against her is clear.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Too bad for Crystal there isn't a "#metoo" movement for people that have received poor legal advice.

Speaking of poor legal advice -- where has Sid gone since it's been shown that the statute of limitations have passed for malicious prosecution?

Kenhyderal -- What are your thoughts?


January 5, 2018 at 7:46 AM


If the statute of limitations has passed for malicious prosecution what does that tell you about Crystal Mangum's appellate defense attorney Ann Petersen? Rhetorical, as it is crystal clear that all of Mangum's attorneys have failed to represent her best interests. It's no reflection on me, as I am not legally trained. Ann Petersen and all of Mangum's post-conviction attorneys should have filed malicious prosecution long ago.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
In addition - the theory for malicious prosecution is that the Larceny charge was used to elevate the murder via felony murder. However, as has been repeatedly shown, larceny cannot do that (even if Sid refuses to learn), so his own theory of why it was malicious is legally wrong.

Yet again another complete and total failure from Sid.

January 4, 2018 at 12:57 PM


As was stated in Mangum's brief, there are two ways to prove malice... one being a collateral purpose. The other is want of probable cause, and clearly that is lacking here. Do you not agree that Daye gave the two cashier's checks to Mangum? And if so, what is the basis for the larceny? There is none!!! The total lack of probable cause is grounds enough to establish malice.

Sorry, no failure on my part, Anony.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

Check out https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=30930:

"Discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party investigates the facts of a case, through the rules of civil procedure, by obtaining evidence from the opposing party and others by means of discovery devices including requests for answers to interrogatories, requests for production of documents and things, requests for admissions, and depositions.

Under the laws of the United States, civil discovery is broadly construed and parties to a civil action can ask for virtually any material which is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This is a much broader standard than simply relevant evidence, because it contemplates the exploration of materials and testimony that may not be directly relevant itself, but that could lead to the discovery of other evidence that would be relevant.

However, discovery is not without limits. Certain types of information are generally protected from discovery, including information which is privileged (such as attorney-client communications, trade secrets, and conversations between spouses) and the work product of the opposing party and his attorney. Other types of information may be protected, depending on the type of case and the status of the party. For instance, juvenile criminal records, certain medical and psychiatric records, etc.

Electronic discovery or "e-discovery" refers to discovery of information stored in electronic format (often referred to as Electronically Stored Information, or ESI).

It mesns that the defendants can question Ceystal in the pre trial phase and if Crystal refuses to answer questions, that could be taken into consideration by any court hearing the case. She could refuse to answer anything which might incriminate her but that would not prove any liability on the part of the defendants.

Who would question the defendants. I believe the NC Bar injunction against you would preclude you questioning anyone on her behalf.

January 4, 2018 at 11:58 AM


Why would Crystal need to conduct discovery? She already has Officer Marianne Bond's police report of April 4, 2011 that states that Daye told her that he gave the cashier's checks to Mangum. The grand jury indictment reads contrarily with a statement that Mangum stole, took, and carried away the cashier's checks... this coming from the State's sole witness Officer Bond. Mangum doesn't need to depose anyone... the proof is in the pudding.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous A Lawyer said...
I can't see the Complaint-- the link doesn't work for me-- but this sounds like another frivolous lawsuit.

If the suit alleges that the murder charge was malicious prosecution, it will be dismissed, because you can't sue for malicious prosecution unless you were acquitted. If the suit alleges that the larceny charge was malicious prosecution, it will be dismissed because it is barred by the statute of limitations. And even if it weren't, the relief for malicious prosecution of one charge (larceny) isn't a new trial on other charges (murder). The only way to get a new trial on the murder charge would be for Mangum to file an MAR in state court (she tried to, but Dr. Harr bungled that by taking the papers to the wrong courthouse!) or a petition for habeas corpus in federal court (which has been denied).

Another swing, another miss. And Dr. Harr's unintentional sabotaging of the MAR shows why the State Bar was right to enjoin him from unauthorized practice of law-- Mangum is worse off as a result of his efforts than if she had no representation at all. I hope they pursue their current investigation, for Mangum's sake.

January 4, 2018 at 11:56 AM


Hey, A Lawyer. Where's the love, homie?

Listen, you want to blame me for Mangum missing the filing deadline? Why don't you put the blame where its due... on Mangum's post-conviction attorneys... including Ann Petersen. The problem is that she did nothing for Crystal. Petersen's direct appeal was an undermining piece of garbage. Face it, A Lawyer, Mangum's attorneys were out to sabotage her case. I have been the only one to help her. Definitely I am the only one with her best interests at heart.

guiowen said...

"The proof is in the pudding"? what pudding?

Nifong Supporter said...


QUESTION: Does anyone believe that Crystal Mangum stole or illegally took and carried away the two cashier's checks as alleged by the Grand Jury in its indictment? Yes or No... and if yes, could I get an explanation?

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
"The proof is in the pudding"? what pudding?

January 5, 2018 at 5:49 PM


gui, mon ami, answer the question above!

Anonymous said...

Sidney said: " Ann Petersen and all of Mangum's post-conviction attorneys should have filed malicious prosecution long ago."

If I remember correctly, Mangum, with your help made the decision to reject Ann Petersen's appeal brief. Petersen actually might have filed it and you both then filed some other kind of appeal and shutdown Ann Petersen from taking any action. At this point Petersen rightly made the decision to stop representing Mangum. So, why did Mangum not file a malicious prosecution suit way back when, with your help?

Sidney also said: "It's no reflection on me, as I am not legally trained." For you to not take any responsibility in the failure of Mangum to get a new trial is quite a extraordinary thing to state. Mangum has decided to place her appeal in your hands, and you have accepted that task. But now you disavow any responsibility for these failures and throw it back on her post conviction attorneys. Sidney you are a piece of work. You need to man up and stop doing the blame game.

Anonymous said...

Sidney said: "Definitely I am the only one with her best interests at heart."

That may be true, but this statement is false:

"I have been the only one to help her."

Could you list how you have helped Mangum Sidney? Going to visit her does not count, being her best bud also does not count.

JSwift said...

idney asks: QUESTION: Does anyone believe that Crystal Mangum stole or illegally took and carried away the two cashier's checks as alleged by the Grand Jury in its indictment? Yes or No... and if yes, could I get an explanation?

I believe there is probable cause to support the conclusion that Crystal Magnum stole or illegally took and carried away the two cashier’s checks.

Daye admitted that he earlier had given the checks to Magnum with the understanding that she would use them to pay the rent on the following Monday. Because he had given them to her earlier, as I understand your argument, she could not have “taken” them as required in the statute.

Daye claimed that as a result of the argument, he told Magnum to return the checks to him, and Magnum failed to do so. Instead she stabbed him and left the apartment. As I understand it, you maintain that Mangum’s failure to return the checks when told to do so by the legal owner of the checks cannot legally be construed as her having “taken” them as required to support a larceny of chose charge.

As you noted in your filing, this specific issue was raised by Meier in the criminal case in a motion to dismiss the larceny of chose charges, citing. Judge Ridgeway ruled against this motion, specifically rejecting this argument. See paragraphs 78-84.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity relating to prosecutorial actions; police investigators have qualified immunity. As a result, I understand that a claim of malicious prosecution faces a high bar. To prevail in your motion, I understand that you would be required to demonstrate that a decision to file the larceny of chose charges was unreasonable and any reasonable person would recognize that it was not supported by probable cause.

I understand that a ruling in the criminal case rejecting a defense theory would make virtually impossible to prevail with a malicious prosecution claim based on that specific rejected theory.

As a result, even ignoring the statute of limitations, I have concluded that this malicious prosecution lawsuit is clearly frivolous. It will be dismissed. You likely will be held in contempt of court for violating the prior court order which forbids you from practicing law without a license.

Walt and A Lawyer, I ask that you correct my comment where I have made mistakes.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

guiowen said...

But Sidney, what pudding is this? Did you buy a pudding and hide some papers in there?

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous:

Sidney Harr:


I brought this up before, and it has to do with Crystal's totally inappropriate identification with the me too movement, something I believe you put her up to.

With regard to Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer, once a woman accused them, a number of other women came forward to accuse,

It has been more than 10 years since Crystal falsely accused the Lacrosse players of raping her(and that no one ever proved she lied is irrelevant-neither she nor you nor Kenny have provided any evidence she told the truth), and no other women have come forward accusing the Lacrosse players of being the out of control women abusing hooligans you hae described them as.

It is not because women feared consequences from Duke. Most of Duke Univesity presumed them guilty.

I will not challenge you to prove that because that would be like challenging Hitler to show he was a humanitarian.

January 5, 2018 at 2:31 PM"


"What Crystal Mangum has in common with the #MeToo movement is that the female sexual assault victims fear coming forward (or breaking the silence) against men of power, wealth and privilege."

Irrelevant statement as Crystal, after after it was suggested to her that she had been raped, showed no hesitation in coming forward. In her written police statement she named three Lacrosse players, sons of well to do white families, as her assailants. Then she bragged to people at the clube at which she worked that the rich white boys would be paying her off.

"Their reluctance to come forward is out of fear of not being believed and of being subjected to retaliation. My point is that Mangum has suffered terribly in those regards... as the mainstream media joined the accused assailants by labeling Mangum as a liar and by doing so as fact. Retaliation has been in the form of trumped up charges that resulted in a wrongful conviction... a large conspiracy of attorneys on both sides, the trial judge, and the mainstream media."

Crystal was named as the liar in the Duke rape HOAX after it became apparent she had falsely accused the innocent Lacrosse players of raping her. The evidence is overwhelming that she DID LIE. False rape accusers have as much to do, if not more than powerful men in making real rape victims come forward.

"Just because multiple victims haven't followed with complaints against the Duke lacrosse athletes doesn't preclude them from having assaulted Crystal or other females."

So prove they did. You have a tendency to believe when you accuse that the accused have to disprove your allegations. You incur an obligation to prove when you make the allegation.

"Comprende?"

I do. You obviously do not.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Anonymous:

"People do not believe Crystal because the evidence is overwhelming that she was not raped. Check out the AG's report :

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/final-duke-rape-report-issued

The question is why won't the AG speak to me about my concerns about injustices against Crystal Mangum? By refusing to communicate with me, his bias against her is clear."

Wrong.

You are ducking the AG's report

What is clear is that no injustices were ever perpetrated against Crystal. On the contrary. She attempted to perpetrate a rather gross injustice against obviously innocent men.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Anonymous:

"Sidney Harr:

Check out https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=30930:

"Discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party investigates the facts of a case, through the rules of civil procedure, by obtaining evidence from the opposing party and others by means of discovery devices including requests for answers to interrogatories, requests for production of documents and things, requests for admissions, and depositions.

Under the laws of the United States, civil discovery is broadly construed and parties to a civil action can ask for virtually any material which is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This is a much broader standard than simply relevant evidence, because it contemplates the exploration of materials and testimony that may not be directly relevant itself, but that could lead to the discovery of other evidence that would be relevant.

However, discovery is not without limits. Certain types of information are generally protected from discovery, including information which is privileged (such as attorney-client communications, trade secrets, and conversations between spouses) and the work product of the opposing party and his attorney. Other types of information may be protected, depending on the type of case and the status of the party. For instance, juvenile criminal records, certain medical and psychiatric records, etc.

Electronic discovery or "e-discovery" refers to discovery of information stored in electronic format (often referred to as Electronically Stored Information, or ESI).

It mesns that the defendants can question Ceystal in the pre trial phase and if Crystal refuses to answer questions, that could be taken into consideration by any court hearing the case. She could refuse to answer anything which might incriminate her but that would not prove any liability on the part of the defendants.

Who would question the defendants. I believe the NC Bar injunction against you would preclude you questioning anyone on her behalf.

January 4, 2018 at 11:58 AM


Why would Crystal need to conduct discovery? She already has Officer Marianne Bond's police report of April 4, 2011 that states that Daye told her that he gave the cashier's checks to Mangum. The grand jury indictment reads contrarily with a statement that Mangum stole, took, and carried away the cashier's checks... this coming from the State's sole witness Officer Bond. Mangum doesn't need to depose anyone... the proof is in the pudding."

The State had more than one witness against Crystal.

You are again insisting that Crystal's complaint, which includes allegations she was prosecuted in retaliation for accusing the demonstrably innocent Duke Lacrosse players of rape, should be accepted at face value, and that the defendants must disprove her allegations.

Even if Crystal does not want to do the Discovery process, the Defense lawyers will. That mmeans Crystal will have to submit to be deposed by the Defendants' attorneys. I do believe, if she refuses to be deposed her case will be dismissed, not that it ever had any chance of going forward.

Verstehst du?

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous A Lawyer said...
I can't see the Complaint-- the link doesn't work for me-- but this sounds like another frivolous lawsuit.

If the suit alleges that the murder charge was malicious prosecution, it will be dismissed, because you can't sue for malicious prosecution unless you were acquitted. If the suit alleges that the larceny charge was malicious prosecution, it will be dismissed because it is barred by the statute of limitations. And even if it weren't, the relief for malicious prosecution of one charge (larceny) isn't a new trial on other charges (murder). The only way to get a new trial on the murder charge would be for Mangum to file an MAR in state court (she tried to, but Dr. Harr bungled that by taking the papers to the wrong courthouse!) or a petition for habeas corpus in federal court (which has been denied).

Another swing, another miss. And Dr. Harr's unintentional sabotaging of the MAR shows why the State Bar was right to enjoin him from unauthorized practice of law-- Mangum is worse off as a result of his efforts than if she had no representation at all. I hope they pursue their current investigation, for Mangum's sake.

"Hey, A Lawyer. Where's the love, homie?

Listen, you want to blame me for Mangum missing the filing deadline?"

I think A Lawyer is blaming you for any legal mismanagement in Crystal's cse, not Crystal. Sidney tries again to duck responsibility.

"Why don't you put the blame where its due... on Mangum's post-conviction attorneys... including Ann Petersen. The problem is that she did nothing for Crystal."

A Lawyer is putting the blame on you, which you are, in a cowardly fashion, trying to duck.

Petersen's direct appeal was an undermining piece of garbage."

So says Sidney Harr who has made a career of filing frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits, not exactly a recommendation for Sidney that his comprehension of the legal system is brilliant.

"Face it, A Lawyer, Mangum's attorneys were out to sabotage her case. I have been the only one to help her. Definitely I am the only one with her best interests at heart."

Face it yourself, Sidney, instead of ducking and dodging, that you were the only one who sabotaged her case.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"QUESTION: Does anyone believe that Crystal Mangum stole or illegally took and carried away the two cashier's checks as alleged by the Grand Jury in its indictment? Yes or No... and if yes, could I get an explanation?"

And

"gui, mon ami, answer the question above!"

As has been explained to you many many times, the larceny in close action charge was never in play when it came to charging Crystal with murder.

I say again: insanity is taking the same failed action over and over again and expecting a different result.

Verstehst du?

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

You say Crystal has an open and shut case. Why dob't you advise her to ask for a summary judgment in her favor. That is what often happens in an open and shut case.

That Due settled with the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players did indicate they had an open and shut case against Duke. Duke would not have settled with them if they had any chance of prevailing in court.

That you have claimed that Duke could have prevailed shows yet again that you are anything but a legal eagle, more like a legal carrion bird.

Veerstehst du?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

You say Crystal has an open and shut case. Why dob't you advise her to ask for a summary judgment in her favor. That is what often happens in an open and shut case.

That Due settled with the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players did indicate they had an open and shut case against Duke. Duke would not have settled with them if they had any chance of prevailing in court.

That you have claimed that Duke could have prevailed shows yet again that you are anything but a legal eagle, more like a legal carrion bird.

Veerstehst du?

January 6, 2018 at 4:29 AM


Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the legal advice. That is worth consideration, and will most likely be enacted once the defendants file a Motion to Dismiss.

I have no idea why Duke settled out of court for $20 million with each of the Duke lacrosse defendants. One likely reason is that Duke thought that the insurance company would pick up the tab. But frankly, I have no idea why Duke University should have any liability regarding the criminal complaint filed by the state. Duke should have done like the City of Durham and stood up to the bully. Legally, it only cost Durham $50 K... a much better outcome, wouldn't you say?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

You say Crystal has an open and shut case. Why dob't you advise her to ask for a summary judgment in her favor. That is what often happens in an open and shut case.

That Due settled with the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players did indicate they had an open and shut case against Duke. Duke would not have settled with them if they had any chance of prevailing in court.

That you have claimed that Duke could have prevailed shows yet again that you are anything but a legal eagle, more like a legal carrion bird.

Veerstehst du?

January 6, 2018 at 4:29 AM


Hey, JSwift.

Let me simplify the issue at hand. Crystal Mangum has always maintained that Daye gave her the cashier's checks.
Officer Bond, in her April 4, 2011 police report, documented in writing that in her interview with Daye he admitted to giving both cashier's checks to Mangum.
There is nothing in prosecution discovery to support that Mangum stole, took and carried away the cashier's checks.
Officer Bond was the only witness to testify before the Grand Jury, and following Bond's testimony the Grand Jury found that Mangum stole and unlawfully took and carried away the cashier's checks.
The Grand Jury indictment must be based on the sole witness's testimony under oath... a reasonable person would conclude that Bond committed perjury.

The only facts regarding the Larceny of Chose in Action charge come from Bond's police report of April 4, 2011... Daye gave the cashier's checks to Mangum.

Although Dan Meier was correct in his argument that the failure to return property upon demand of the owner does not constitute larceny or theft, Meier, as he typically did at trial, undermined his client by stating that she refused to return the cashier's checks. That's a false because Daye never asked for Crystal to return the checks. Had he made such a request, she surely would have complied.

Consider yourself elucidated... and thanks for addressing the question.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney said: " Ann Petersen and all of Mangum's post-conviction attorneys should have filed malicious prosecution long ago."

If I remember correctly, Mangum, with your help made the decision to reject Ann Petersen's appeal brief. Petersen actually might have filed it and you both then filed some other kind of appeal and shutdown Ann Petersen from taking any action. At this point Petersen rightly made the decision to stop representing Mangum. So, why did Mangum not file a malicious prosecution suit way back when, with your help?

Sidney also said: "It's no reflection on me, as I am not legally trained." For you to not take any responsibility in the failure of Mangum to get a new trial is quite a extraordinary thing to state. Mangum has decided to place her appeal in your hands, and you have accepted that task. But now you disavow any responsibility for these failures and throw it back on her post conviction attorneys. Sidney you are a piece of work. You need to man up and stop doing the blame game.

January 5, 2018 at 6:08 PM


Hey, Anony.

You are mistaken. Neither Mangum nor I even saw Ann Petersen's brief for the Direct Appeal until long after it was filed. The overriding reason for disappointment by Mangum is that Petersen's Direct Appeal was severely restricted to the 404(b) issue (one that only made Mangum look worse). Clearly, an attorney with Mangum's best interests at heart would have included the issue that the indictment was flawed due to the sole witness's testimony that was impeached by her own police report... and that because she was the sole Grand Jury witness for the murder charge, it should be vacated and the conviction on the murder charge overturned.

My question for you, Anony, is why do you believe that Petersen did not bring up as an issue the fact that the sole witness to the Grand Jury proceedings had been impeached? (Rhetorical question... Petersen was out to sabotage Mangum just like her other attorneys!)

Consider yourself thoroughly elucidated and enlightened.

Anonymous said...

Sidney said: "My question for you, Anony, is why do you believe that Petersen did not bring up as an issue the fact that the sole witness to the Grand Jury proceedings had been impeached? (Rhetorical question... Petersen was out to sabotage Mangum just like her other attorneys!)"

No, you are mistaken. Walt has previously commented that the 404(b) was the best approach at getting a new trial for Mangum. And Walt is legally trained. You and Mangum made the decision that this was a poor approach and have since gone down a different path. This path has proved fruitless. In other words, you could have allowed the 404(b) appeal and if that failed, then you could have started down the current path you have taken. You state "(one that only made Mangum look worse)", but you are not legally trained, so how can you make that statement? Other than it is just your opinion, which legally means nothing and does not help Mangum at all.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

Sidney's latest:

to Anonymous January 5, 2018 at 6:08 PM


"You are mistaken. Neither Mangum nor I even saw Ann Petersen's brief for the Direct Appeal until long after it was filed. The overriding reason for disappointment by Mangum is that Petersen's Direct Appeal was severely restricted to the 404(b) issue (one that only made Mangum look worse). Clearly, an attorney with Mangum's best interests at heart would have included the issue that the indictment was flawed due to the sole witness's testimony that was impeached by her own police report... and that because she was the sole Grand Jury witness for the murder charge, it should be vacated and the conviction on the murder charge overturned.

My question for you, Anony, is why do you believe that Petersen did not bring up as an issue the fact that the sole witness to the Grand Jury proceedings had been impeached? (Rhetorical question... Petersen was out to sabotage Mangum just like her other attorneys!)"

I revise my claim that you are a delusional megalomaniac.

You are a seriously paranoid delusional megalomaniac.

I add this is a statement from a person who has made a career out of filing and losing frivolous non meritorious lawsuits, which does not exactly render him a brilliant legal expert.

"Consider yourself thoroughly elucidated and enlightened."

Du kannst niemanden erleuchten oder erleuchten

Verstehst du?

Ich denke nicht.

Du kannst nicht sehen, dass ich dich missachte

JSwift said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

John Smith,

Remember - the other premise on which Sid's case is based is that the Larceny Charge somehow had any effect on the murder charge. It did not. No matter how many times Sid tries to claim it had anything to do with Felony Murder, it doesn't. That's been shown to him, and explained to him repeatedly. Even if he were right on everything else, and it being malicious and/or frivolous, it would not affect the murder charge. It never was, never could be, intended to elevate it to Felony Murder, because that is not legally possible, and was never even considered being presented to the jury as such.

Sid's lawsuit is a joke. And, he and Kenny can whine about the "injustice" of a Statute of Limitations, but they can't get around the fact that his basic premise is 100% completely, and totally wrong, as has been repeatedly explained to him.

Of course, Sid's response will be what it always is "then why did they charge it"? To which the response is "who knows, you'd have to ask them, but it wasn't to get to Felony Murder, because unlike you, they know the law."

A Lawyer said...

The overriding reason for disappointment by Mangum is that Petersen's Direct Appeal was severely restricted to the 404(b) issue (one that only made Mangum look worse). Clearly, an attorney with Mangum's best interests at heart would have included the issue that the indictment was flawed due to the sole witness's testimony that was impeached by her own police report... and that because she was the sole Grand Jury witness for the murder charge, it should be vacated and the conviction on the murder charge overturned.

My question for you, Anony, is why do you believe that Petersen did not bring up as an issue the fact that the sole witness to the Grand Jury proceedings had been impeached? (Rhetorical question... Petersen was out to sabotage Mangum just like her other attorneys!)


The 404(b) issue had some possibility of getting Mangum a new trial. The other issue had none: Mangum was acquitted of the larceny charge, so she couldn't complain about it on appeal; and the presence of the larceny charge had nothing to do with the murder charge on which Mangum was convicted, so it could not lead to a new trial on the murder charge.

The fact that the two charges are separate is also why your new malicious prosecution complaint will fail.

JSwift said...

Sidney,

Your reply to me is completely frivolous. You failed to respond to any of the points I made in my comment.

1. Given the immunity granted to prosecutors and investigators, the threshold for malicious prosecution is high. The prosecution must be "unreasonable." An acquittal by itself does not necessarily support a malicious prosecution claim. A dismissal of charges by itself does not necessarily support a malicious prosecution claim. Do you disagree with this characterization? If so, why?

2. Judge Ridgeway rejected the specific theory on which your lawsuit is based: a failure to return the checks cannot be construed legally as a "taking" for purposes of the larceny of chose charge. Meier claimed in a motion for dismissal that the failure to return the checks was a "keeping" and not a “taking." In rejecting the claim, Ridgeway relied on caselaw that concluded differently. Your filing conceded this fact.

3. The court ruling and prior caselaw contradicts your theory and supports the prosecutor and investigator. This would make it difficult to conclude that the prosecutor and investigator acted "unreasonably" in concluding that Mangum's alleged failure to return the checks on demand met the "taking" requirement of the statute. Do you disagree with this characterization? If so, why?

You appear to operate with two serious misconceptions of the legal process.

First, you appear to believe that all you are required to so is to state your opinion, and the court is then required to grant your demands. If you want a trial, then a trial is required. If you believe an esophageal intubation is an intervening cause, then it is an intervening cause. If you believe a court ruling is incorrect, then it is incorrect. Anyone who disagrees with you is a liar, perjurer, uninformed or is actively conspiring against Magnum.

Second, you appear to believe that all parties are required to accept as fact any statement made by Magnum. If specific statements are proven false with certainty (e.g., three specific individuals gang raped her and deposited semen), those disproven statements must be ignored, and remaining statements not yet proven false must continue to be accepted as fact. When Magnum is an accuser, her accusation, even when contradicted by physical and medical evidence, is sufficient to require a trial, if not a conviction. When Magnum is a defendant, her denial is sufficient to require dismissal of all charges.

Legal filings based on these premises are frivolous.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

"The fact that the two charges are separate is also why your new malicious prosecution complaint will fail."

Summary Judgement up next!

Anonymous said...

Or, more likely, Summary Judgment up next.

A Lawyer said...

It won't get to summary judgment. This will be dismissed on a 12(b)(6) motion.

Nifong Supporter said...



Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney said: "My question for you, Anony, is why do you believe that Petersen did not bring up as an issue the fact that the sole witness to the Grand Jury proceedings had been impeached? (Rhetorical question... Petersen was out to sabotage Mangum just like her other attorneys!)"

No, you are mistaken. Walt has previously commented that the 404(b) was the best approach at getting a new trial for Mangum. And Walt is legally trained. You and Mangum made the decision that this was a poor approach and have since gone down a different path. This path has proved fruitless. In other words, you could have allowed the 404(b) appeal and if that failed, then you could have started down the current path you have taken. You state "(one that only made Mangum look worse)", but you are not legally trained, so how can you make that statement? Other than it is just your opinion, which legally means nothing and does not help Mangum at all.

January 6, 2018 at 7:05 AM


Hah! That's a bunch of abalone! The 404(b) is the worst possible issue that Petersen could have chosen. It's one that's bound to fail, but not only that, it does nothing but rehash an earlier event that put Mangum in a bad light. Petersen pursued it and it failed. Petersen, had she wanted Mangum to be successful, should have included many more of the strong issues on appeal... such as the perjury committed by the medical examiner and the Durham Police Officer Bond. It's that simple.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

Sidney's latest:

to Anonymous January 5, 2018 at 6:08 PM


"You are mistaken. Neither Mangum nor I even saw Ann Petersen's brief for the Direct Appeal until long after it was filed. The overriding reason for disappointment by Mangum is that Petersen's Direct Appeal was severely restricted to the 404(b) issue (one that only made Mangum look worse). Clearly, an attorney with Mangum's best interests at heart would have included the issue that the indictment was flawed due to the sole witness's testimony that was impeached by her own police report... and that because she was the sole Grand Jury witness for the murder charge, it should be vacated and the conviction on the murder charge overturned.

My question for you, Anony, is why do you believe that Petersen did not bring up as an issue the fact that the sole witness to the Grand Jury proceedings had been impeached? (Rhetorical question... Petersen was out to sabotage Mangum just like her other attorneys!)"

I revise my claim that you are a delusional megalomaniac.

You are a seriously paranoid delusional megalomaniac.

I add this is a statement from a person who has made a career out of filing and losing frivolous non meritorious lawsuits, which does not exactly render him a brilliant legal expert.

"Consider yourself thoroughly elucidated and enlightened."

Du kannst niemanden erleuchten oder erleuchten

Verstehst du?

Ich denke nicht.

Du kannst nicht sehen, dass ich dich missachte

January 6, 2018 at 7:48 AM


Eins, I never claimed to be a legal expert.

Zwei, auf Wiedersehen.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
John Smith,

Remember - the other premise on which Sid's case is based is that the Larceny Charge somehow had any effect on the murder charge. It did not. No matter how many times Sid tries to claim it had anything to do with Felony Murder, it doesn't. That's been shown to him, and explained to him repeatedly. Even if he were right on everything else, and it being malicious and/or frivolous, it would not affect the murder charge. It never was, never could be, intended to elevate it to Felony Murder, because that is not legally possible, and was never even considered being presented to the jury as such.

Sid's lawsuit is a joke. And, he and Kenny can whine about the "injustice" of a Statute of Limitations, but they can't get around the fact that his basic premise is 100% completely, and totally wrong, as has been repeatedly explained to him.

Of course, Sid's response will be what it always is "then why did they charge it"? To which the response is "who knows, you'd have to ask them, but it wasn't to get to Felony Murder, because unlike you, they know the law."


January 6, 2018 at 9:25 AM


The Larceny of Chose in Action charge was clearly malicious and for a collateral purpose. The importance of the perjured testimony by Officer Bond in the Larceny charge has to do with her credibility as a witness in the murder charge. If her larceny testimony is impeached, which it is by her Police Report of April 4, 2011, then her entire testimony on the murder charge is impeached, as well. And since she is the only witness before the Grand Jury, the murder indictment should be vacated, the conviction overturned, and Mangum granted a new trial. Comprende?

kenhyderal said...

It's Crystal clear.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous A Lawyer said...
The overriding reason for disappointment by Mangum is that Petersen's Direct Appeal was severely restricted to the 404(b) issue (one that only made Mangum look worse). Clearly, an attorney with Mangum's best interests at heart would have included the issue that the indictment was flawed due to the sole witness's testimony that was impeached by her own police report... and that because she was the sole Grand Jury witness for the murder charge, it should be vacated and the conviction on the murder charge overturned.

My question for you, Anony, is why do you believe that Petersen did not bring up as an issue the fact that the sole witness to the Grand Jury proceedings had been impeached? (Rhetorical question... Petersen was out to sabotage Mangum just like her other attorneys!)

The 404(b) issue had some possibility of getting Mangum a new trial. The other issue had none: Mangum was acquitted of the larceny charge, so she couldn't complain about it on appeal; and the presence of the larceny charge had nothing to do with the murder charge on which Mangum was convicted, so it could not lead to a new trial on the murder charge.

The fact that the two charges are separate is also why your new malicious prosecution complaint will fail.

January 6, 2018 at 1:55 PM


Hey, A Lawyer.

You missed my point. The issue is not that the Larceny charge was dismissed, but rather that the State's sole witness for both charges - Durham Officer Marianne Bond, was the sole witness before the Grand Jury. Her testimony on the Larceny charge was impeached by her own April 4, 2011 police report... which would automatically discredit her testimony before the Grand Jury which resulted in a first degree murder indictment.

Let me know if more elucidation is required.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Eins, I never claimed to be a legal expert."

Yes you have, on two occasions, eins, when you proclaimed you would humiliate the NC State Bar, und Zwei, when you posted that people were in awe of your brilliant grasp of the law.

If you are no legal expert, what are your qualifications to declare Crystal's lawsuit an open and shut case? Zero, just like you have zero evidence Crystal was ever raped on the night of March 13/14 2006.

Zwei, auf Wiedersehen.

Du w√ľnscht. Du kennst keine Deutsch.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous A Lawyer said...
The overriding reason for disappointment by Mangum is that Petersen's Direct Appeal was severely restricted to the 404(b) issue (one that only made Mangum look worse). Clearly, an attorney with Mangum's best interests at heart would have included the issue that the indictment was flawed due to the sole witness's testimony that was impeached by her own police report... and that because she was the sole Grand Jury witness for the murder charge, it should be vacated and the conviction on the murder charge overturned.

My question for you, Anony, is why do you believe that Petersen did not bring up as an issue the fact that the sole witness to the Grand Jury proceedings had been impeached? (Rhetorical question... Petersen was out to sabotage Mangum just like her other attorneys!)

The 404(b) issue had some possibility of getting Mangum a new trial. The other issue had none: Mangum was acquitted of the larceny charge, so she couldn't complain about it on appeal; and the presence of the larceny charge had nothing to do with the murder charge on which Mangum was convicted, so it could not lead to a new trial on the murder charge.

The fact that the two charges are separate is also why your new malicious prosecution complaint will fail.

January 6, 2018 at 1:55 PM


Hey, A Lawyer.

You missed my point. The issue is not that the Larceny charge was dismissed, but rather that the State's sole witness for both charges - Durham Officer Marianne Bond, was the sole witness before the Grand Jury. Her testimony on the Larceny charge was impeached by her own April 4, 2011 police report... which would automatically discredit her testimony before the Grand Jury which resulted in a first degree murder indictment."

The only point here is the one on your head.

Here you more than document you know nothing about the law.

"Let me know if more elucidation is required."

How can you provide more elucidation when you have provided zilch in the first place?

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney said: "My question for you, Anony, is why do you believe that Petersen did not bring up as an issue the fact that the sole witness to the Grand Jury proceedings had been impeached? (Rhetorical question... Petersen was out to sabotage Mangum just like her other attorneys!)"

No, you are mistaken. Walt has previously commented that the 404(b) was the best approach at getting a new trial for Mangum. And Walt is legally trained. You and Mangum made the decision that this was a poor approach and have since gone down a different path. This path has proved fruitless. In other words, you could have allowed the 404(b) appeal and if that failed, then you could have started down the current path you have taken. You state "(one that only made Mangum look worse)", but you are not legally trained, so how can you make that statement? Other than it is just your opinion, which legally means nothing and does not help Mangum at all.

January 6, 2018 at 7:05 AM


Hah! That's a bunch of abalone! The 404(b) is the worst possible issue that Petersen could have chosen. It's one that's bound to fail, but not only that, it does nothing but rehash an earlier event that put Mangum in a bad light. Petersen pursued it and it failed. Petersen, had she wanted Mangum to be successful, should have included many more of the strong issues on appeal... such as the perjury committed by the medical examiner and the Durham Police Officer Bond. It's that simple."

Sidney with your level of intellectual capability uu couldn'ttell an abslone from an abdomen. Maybe that is one reason why you were never accepted into residency training.

Nifong Supporter said...


JSwift said...
Sidney,

Your reply to me is completely frivolous. You failed to respond to any of the points I made in my comment.

1. Given the immunity granted to prosecutors and investigators, the threshold for malicious prosecution is high. The prosecution must be "unreasonable." An acquittal by itself does not necessarily support a malicious prosecution claim. A dismissal of charges by itself does not necessarily support a malicious prosecution claim. Do you disagree with this characterization? If so, why?

2. Judge Ridgeway rejected the specific theory on which your lawsuit is based: a failure to return the checks cannot be construed legally as a "taking" for purposes of the larceny of chose charge. Meier claimed in a motion for dismissal that the failure to return the checks was a "keeping" and not a “taking." In rejecting the claim, Ridgeway relied on caselaw that concluded differently. Your filing conceded this fact.

3. The court ruling and prior caselaw contradicts your theory and supports the prosecutor and investigator. This would make it difficult to conclude that the prosecutor and investigator acted "unreasonably" in concluding that Mangum's alleged failure to return the checks on demand met the "taking" requirement of the statute. Do you disagree with this characterization? If so, why?

You appear to operate with two serious misconceptions of the legal process.

First, you appear to believe that all you are required to so is to state your opinion, and the court is then required to grant your demands. If you want a trial, then a trial is required. If you believe an esophageal intubation is an intervening cause, then it is an intervening cause. If you believe a court ruling is incorrect, then it is incorrect. Anyone who disagrees with you is a liar, perjurer, uninformed or is actively conspiring against Magnum.

Second, you appear to believe that all parties are required to accept as fact any statement made by Magnum. If specific statements are proven false with certainty (e.g., three specific individuals gang raped her and deposited semen), those disproven statements must be ignored, and remaining statements not yet proven false must continue to be accepted as fact. When Magnum is an accuser, her accusation, even when contradicted by physical and medical evidence, is sufficient to require a trial, if not a conviction. When Magnum is a defendant, her denial is sufficient to require dismissal of all charges.

Legal filings based on these premises are frivolous.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

January 6, 2018 at 6:44 PM


Hey, JSwift.

Regarding point one, the Larceny charge was not dismissed. A jury of twelve, though slanted, found Mangum to be not guilty of the charge. Therefore, one of four elements required for the Malicious Prosecution has been met.

Regarding Point two, Judge Ridgeway's caselaw citation lacked any relevance to Mangum's case. As usual, Mangum's attorney Meier undermined her by stating that she refused to return the cashier's check to Daye. That's false. He never asked for the return of the cashier's check. and had he, Mangum would have complied. The fact is that Daye gave both cashier's checks to Crystal Mangum and they remained in her possession. Therefore, it is impossible for her to have taken them.

Regarding point three, the Ridgeway caselaw is irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr's Latest in response to JSwift:

"Hey, JSwift.

Regarding point one, the Larceny charge was not dismissed. A jury of twelve, though slanted, found Mangum to be not guilty of the charge. Therefore, one of four elements required for the Malicious Prosecution has been met.

Regarding Point two, Judge Ridgeway's caselaw citation lacked any relevance to Mangum's case. As usual, Mangum's attorney Meier undermined her by stating that she refused to return the cashier's check to Daye. That's false. He never asked for the return of the cashier's check. and had he, Mangum would have complied. The fact is that Daye gave both cashier's checks to Crystal Mangum and they remained in her possession. Therefore, it is impossible for her to have taken them.

Regarding point three, the Ridgeway caselaw is irrelevant."

Sidney, which legal experts gave you this explanation.

That you see it this way is irrelevant and of no legal weight(a term with which I believe you are familiar). You again delude yourself to believe that Crystal's case is open and shut and there is no need for he discovery process. Crystal has to make her case, and your arguments do not make her case.

However, I would like for this to go to discovery, rather than by a dismissal or a summary judgment against you(which will happen if Crystal, following your lead that the case is open and shut, because the defendants' lawyers would have a right to depose her and she will try to avoid being deposed, there by sinking her case.

JSwift said...

Sidney,

Your reply to my comment was once again completely frivolous.

Your first point was a restatement of the obvious. I recognize that the larceny of chose charges were not dismissed, but rather went to trial and the jury found her not guilty.

Your second point is merely a restatement of your opinion (Ridgeway's caselaw, and thus his ruling, are irrelevant) or a requirement by the reader that Mangum's statement be taken as fact and Daye's conflicting allegation must be disregarded (she did not refuse to return the checks).

You have not responded to the main point I made:

1. Malicious misconduct has a high bar; it must be "unreasonable." Merely by stating your opinion and relying on Mangum's denial, you failed to meet this high bar.

2 and 3. Ridgeway's ruling to reject Meier's motion for dismissal and the caselaw he cited provide significant support that the decision to proceed with the larceny charges was not "unreasonable." Your opinion does nothing to overcome this.

Your filing was frivolous.

Your suit is barred by the statute of limitations. It relies on a statement of your opinion, rather than legal argument, to support its conclusion that the prosecution was malicious. It asks for a remedy not available under the law.

I note that anyone is entitled to their opinion. However, they are not entitled to require that others accept their opinion.

I close by reminding you that you reacted with outrage when I accused you of being either unwilling or unable to engage in honest discussion. This thread proves that accusation. You are unable or unwilling to enter into a discussion that requires that you go beyond a statement of your opinion.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Anonymous said...

Sidney said: "Petersen pursued it and it failed." Was Petersen's appeal acted upon by a judge? I do not remember that happening. If a judge has ruled then I stand corrected. If it was never acted upon then we shall never know if the 404(b) would have been successful. All we know is that in your opinion it would not be.

kenhyderal said...

Yes it was ruled on by Judge Anne Marie Calabria on July 7 2015 https://law.justia.com/cases/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2015/14-909.html

FakeKenhyderal said...

I believe Anonymous @ 3:42 is thinking of the Ann Peterson PDR -- It was withdrawn upon the request of Crystal Mangum:
https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=176073

A Lawyer said...

If her larceny testimony is impeached, which it is by her Police Report of April 4, 2011, then her entire testimony on the murder charge is impeached, as well. And since she is the only witness before the Grand Jury, the murder indictment should be vacated, the conviction overturned, and Mangum granted a new trial. Comprende?

No, that's not the way it works. The fact that you now claim you can impeach a witness who testified before the grand jury doesn't result in a new trial on the murder charge, if the evidence at trial was sufficient to go to the jury on the murder charge.

Anonymous said...

Ok, the 404(b) failed. What was the PDR about?