Thursday, February 7, 2019

Crystal Mangum's Appeal Brief

19 comments:

Dr. Caligari said...

The statute of limitations is an absolute defense. The exception for fraud or mistake is when the plaintiff is suing for fraud or mistake, not when the plaintiff's failure to file on time is due to fraud or mistake.

Moreover, how is Mangum entitled to damages for her incarceration, when she was not incarcerated on the larceny charge?

In short, another swing and another miss.

Anonymous said...

Funny...If the documents for her court case were actually "her work", you'd think she would have recalled them better.

Anonymous said...

Sid claims Crystal writes this stuff, he just types it. Will be interesting to see if they request Crystal's handwritten notes. Sid may join her in jail.

Anonymous said...

On what grounds would Sid be jailed?

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
The statute of limitations is an absolute defense. The exception for fraud or mistake is when the plaintiff is suing for fraud or mistake, not when the plaintiff's failure to file on time is due to fraud or mistake.

Moreover, how is Mangum entitled to damages for her incarceration, when she was not incarcerated on the larceny charge?

In short, another swing and another miss.

February 8, 2019 at 12:54 PM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

Specifically the clause reads thusly: "(9) For relief on the ground of fraud or mistake;  the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake."
That may be subject to multiple interpretation. I would submit that though the untimely filing by Mangum attorneys was probably fraudulent, it was definitely negligence or a mistake whereby I would interpret the statute of limitation as being applicable in waiving the beginning of the time for the statute countdown to coincide with when she became aware of the mistake made by her counsel.

Is it your contention that the failure to file a malicious prosecution complaint in civil court was not a mistake? If so, please expound.


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Funny...If the documents for her court case were actually "her work", you'd think she would have recalled them better.


February 8, 2019 at 2:54 PM


Hey, Anony.

Require further clarification. To which "documents" are you referring?

If you are referring to the Evidence and Exhibits that were on her table at the hearing, I prepared those for her. There was no attempt at deception regarding the author of those documents.

Let me know specifically as to which documents you refer.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid claims Crystal writes this stuff, he just types it. Will be interesting to see if they request Crystal's handwritten notes. Sid may join her in jail.


February 9, 2019 at 8:57 AM


Hey, Anony.

Join Crystal in jail? Hah! Just wishful thinking on your part. Currently the closest I join Crystal in jail is during visitation. But the reality is that she will be free soon, so you better get used to it.

As far a jail goes, what is your thinking in reference to the State witnesses who committed perjury?

Dr. Caligari said...

Specifically the clause reads thusly: "(9) For relief on the ground of fraud or mistake;  the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake."
That may be subject to multiple interpretation.


The courts have interpreted it. Their interpretation is what will be followed.

Is it your contention that the failure to file a malicious prosecution complaint in civil court was not a mistake?

(a) Irrelevant, because any "mistake" by Mangum's criminal defense lawyers wouldn't affect the statute of limitations to sue someone else. But:
(b) No, it was not a mistake, because court-appointed criminal lawyers have no duty to file civil suits. Especially here, where (as has been explained to you previously many times) any allegedly malicious prosecution of the larceny count couldn't possibly affect the murder count.

Anonymous said...

You wrote that Mangum "had every expectation that she would be afforded the basic right to have access to HER [emphasis mine] work product to assist in her presentation....[and] was at a great disadvantage as she was forced to present her entire case from memory"

Did her "work product" not include documents? If not, how did you manage to type up anything?

Having watched the trial, it appeared to me she had little to no familiarity with this work product.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
Specifically the clause reads thusly: "(9) For relief on the ground of fraud or mistake;  the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake."
That may be subject to multiple interpretation.


The courts have interpreted it. Their interpretation is what will be followed.

Is it your contention that the failure to file a malicious prosecution complaint in civil court was not a mistake?

(a) Irrelevant, because any "mistake" by Mangum's criminal defense lawyers wouldn't affect the statute of limitations to sue someone else. But:
(b) No, it was not a mistake, because court-appointed criminal lawyers have no duty to file civil suits. Especially here, where (as has been explained to you previously many times) any allegedly malicious prosecution of the larceny count couldn't possibly affect the murder count.

February 10, 2019 at 8:26 AM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

I respectfully disagree with both of your points, but on the latter you fail to acknowledge that at the Grand Jury hearing Marianne Bond was the only witness to testify on all of the subsequent indictments. As was referenced in a prior shar-video, her impeached testimony on the larceny charge makes her testimony on the murder charge unreliable since it is not corroborated. Clearly an avenue to invalidate the murder indictment existed.

Also, regarding an attorney's duty to his client, allow an analogy. Suppose an otolaryngologist (ear-nose-throat specialist) performs an endoscopy on a patient and detects a tumor in the esophagus. Is it your position that since an esophageal tumor would be the purview of an oncologist and/or gastroenterologist and not in his specialty's field, that it would be acceptable for him not to mention his finding to the patient or suggest that his patient consult an appropriate specialist to deal with the finding?

I am of the belief, that if a criminal defense attorney is aware of a violation of civil law, especially if it would accrue significantly to his client, then that lawyer is obligated to fully inform the client. I see no justification for withholding such information from the client. That is my humble opinion.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
You wrote that Mangum "had every expectation that she would be afforded the basic right to have access to HER [emphasis mine] work product to assist in her presentation....[and] was at a great disadvantage as she was forced to present her entire case from memory"

Did her "work product" not include documents? If not, how did you manage to type up anything?

Having watched the trial, it appeared to me she had little to no familiarity with this work product.

February 10, 2019 at 3:09 PM


Hey, Anony.

I believe that you are confusing Mangum's work product and notes with the syllabi and folders I placed on her table prior to opening of the hearing by the judge. Those were documents of which she was not familiar and had never seen. I had hoped to use them had I had the opportunity to take the witness stand. In addition, Crystal had no time to go through them prior to the judge opening the session because Crystal was brought into the courtroom minutes after the judge was seated and spoke to defense attorneys.

Crystal's work product consisted of the notes and documents she had prepared in prison and had anticipated taking to court to assist her with her presentation. These included case law, rules, presentation outline, etc. These important documents were the items confiscated just prior to her boarding the van in Goldsboro for transport to Durham. So on arriving in Durham, she was forced to present her case from memory.

Meanwhile, defense attorneys arrived fifteen minutes prior to the court session's opening; they had time to spread out all of the documents in their brief cases, set up their laptops, and settle in comfortably... collecting their thoughts. Also, their hands were not bound with separation-restricted handcuffs. Shirley this was no level playing field; with the vantage hands down in favor of the defendants.

I hope you have been adequately elucidated.

kenhyderal supporter said...

kenhyderal,

We are waiting for your comments on Crystal’s brief. Please don’t disappoint us.

Anonymous said...

Kenny never comments on Sid's actual legal filings - he knows they are a complete and total joke, but doesn't want to admit it.

Kenny waits until the filings are dismissed and Sid loses (again) in Court, then he screams about how unjust the system is.

Gotta give him time. Don't worry, the whining will come, just not yet.

kenhyderal supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

Please delete the post at 5:10. This cowardly anonymous poster has intimidated kenhyderal and kenhyderal is now afraid to express his thoughtful and articulate opinions. Unless you intervene, kenhyderal will be driven away from your blog and we will lose his contributions.

kenhyderal said...

https://www.azquotes.com/quote/472240

Anonymous said...

Kenny proves once more that he is a googler extraordinaire.

kenhyderal supporter said...

You are wrong. kenhyderal is first and foremost a defender of justice

Doogie Howser said...

ks,

How do you know that?

kenhyderal supporter said...

kenhyderal said so in a comment he posted many years ago.