Monday, July 20, 2020

NC Justice in Crystal Mangum's case: Cruel, corrupt, and racist -- Part One

62 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Nifong Supporter Supporter said...
Be careful Dr. Harr. The mediator will use Jedi mind tricks in his attempt to make you drop your case.

July 18, 2020 at 5:22 AM


Hey, Nifong double-Supporter.

Hah! Jedi mind-tricks don't work on me. I'm immune to them.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Why didn't you post my comment?

July 18, 2020 at 7:14 PM


Hey, Anony.

Any comment not posted, if within kenhyderal doctrine standards, is inadvertent. I would recommend that you provide me with a date and time of submission and I will try to find it. Otherwise, re-submit. Thanks.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr -- You are responsible for your share of the mediator's fee unless you file a motion with the court to be relieved of the obligation to pay.

Keep in mind, the court will not rule on this motion upon completion of the case, and the court will take into consideration the outcome of the case when making this ruling.

July 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM


Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the info. I will plan on paying the mediator if that is the road taken. Guess I need to consult with opposing counsel to ascertain whether their client is agreeable to mediation.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
More info regarding mediated cases here:

http://www.nced.uscourts.gov/pdfs/ADRrules.pdf

July 20, 2020 at 11:15 AM


Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the link. I took a look and it is very helpful in understanding the process. Being a non-lawyer Pro Se litigant I appreciate all the assistance I can get... and in the past I have received a lot of help from commenters.

Anonymous said...

This case will be dismissed long before mediation. There is no claim that a private entity violated your constitutional right to a jury trial by filing a Motion to Dismiss.

Prepare for mediation all you want, this case will be long gone before it gets to that point.

Anonymous said...

Since Sid hasn't been providing updates....

Marianne Bond has filed a motion to dismiss for FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM in Mangum's federal court malicious prosecution case.

FWIW, I expect this to be similar to the motion filed on the original case in May 2018. If you're so inclined, you can read that here:
http://www.justice4nifong.com/exhibit/uLhtm03/htm03.htm#sty01

The Durham DA's office was granted their motion for an extension of time to file an answer as well.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Since Sid hasn't been providing updates....

Marianne Bond has filed a motion to dismiss for FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM in Mangum's federal court malicious prosecution case.

FWIW, I expect this to be similar to the motion filed on the original case in May 2018. If you're so inclined, you can read that here:
http://www.justice4nifong.com/exhibit/uLhtm03/htm03.htm#sty01

The Durham DA's office was granted their motion for an extension of time to file an answer as well.

July 22, 2020 at 11:50 AM


Hey, Anony.

Within the hour I just got off the phone with Crystal. She told me that she hasn't received any legal mail containing a response by defendant Marianne Bond.

What I don't think you realize is that the defense used in the 2018 State court by Bond was that the statute of limitations had expired. She never used Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted) as a defense in that case. If, as you say, she does use Rule 12(b)(6) as a defense in federal court, then the pleading has to be different than in the state court.

Frankly I don't see how such a defense of failure to state a claim can be used as all four elements of malicious prosecution claim have been met.

The defense of the D.A.'s Office in 2018 was also not failure to state a claim. Its defense included untimeliness, improper service, wrong defendants served, and qualified immunity.

If you have a link to Bond's defense in Federal Court I would very much appreciate it if you could provide a link. Thanks.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
This case will be dismissed long before mediation. There is no claim that a private entity violated your constitutional right to a jury trial by filing a Motion to Dismiss.

Prepare for mediation all you want, this case will be long gone before it gets to that point.


July 21, 2020 at 4:25 AM


Hey, Anony.

The only way the defendants have any hope of prevailing is by having the case summarily dismissed... to keep it from being adjudicated by a jury. I'll prepare and we'll see what the judge says.

Anonymous said...

As I said at the outset, I don’t think this case will turn out well for you and Crystal.

Anonymous said...

Sid says:
"What I don't think you realize is that the defense used in the 2018 State court by Bond was that the statute of limitations had expired. She never used Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted) as a defense in that case. If, as you say, she does use Rule 12(b)(6) as a defense in federal court, then the pleading has to be different than in the state court.

Sid -- I linked to the Marianne Bond's 2018 motion that you posted on this website.

Please open that link and read the FIRST PARAGRAPH under the "Motion to Dismiss" section. The one that starts with "Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)....."

WRT a link to the document....That's what PACER is for.

Anonymous said...

It also appears that a "Roseboro Letter" regarding Marianne Bond's motion to dismiss was sent to Crystal Mangum.

What this means, Sid, is that Crystal MUST respond to the motion and failing to respond would likely result in summary judgment for the Defendant.

guiowen said...

Sidney,
I'm sorry but you seem to be doing everything wrong.
Too bad,as I'd really like to see you get CGM out. First, GET A LAWYER! Then, DO WHAT HE TELLS YOU TO DO.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Sidney,
I'm sorry but you seem to be doing everything wrong.
Too bad,as I'd really like to see you get CGM out. First, GET A LAWYER! Then, DO WHAT HE TELLS YOU TO DO.

July 23, 2020 at 11:54 AM


Hey, gui, mon ami.

May I remind you that Crystal has had many lawyers and she did as she was told. She wound up getting convicted of second-degree murder for a crime that wasn't committed. All the lawyers she had could have easily had her acquitted, but they did not want to do that. Had they been willing to discuss the medical issues with me, that would have least shown that they were really fighting for Crystal's best interests and not Duke University.

Mangum was abandoned by the NC Prisoner Legal Services, the NAACP and ACLU won't provide any legal assistance, and neither will any of the innocence projects. Any ethical attorney will probably shy away from accepting Mangum as a client whereas any unethical attorney who agrees to represent her will more likely than not sell her out.

I think she's best representing herself because she has her best interests at heart, without a doubt. We can agree on that... right?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
It also appears that a "Roseboro Letter" regarding Marianne Bond's motion to dismiss was sent to Crystal Mangum.

What this means, Sid, is that Crystal MUST respond to the motion and failing to respond would likely result in summary judgment for the Defendant.

July 23, 2020 at 10:59 AM


Hey, Anony.

I'm not an attorney, but my understanding of a Roseboro letter is that it is information sent by the clerk of court's office to a pro se litigant to provide procedural assistance. Because Mangum filed the initial brief, I don't believe failing to reply to the Defendants' response will be a disqualifier. But, believe me, she will respond to any response offered by the defendants. In speaking with her earlier today, the only document she received from the clerk of court was the Durham D.A.'s Office Motion for an Extension to File.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid says:

"What I don't think you realize is that the defense used in the 2018 State court by Bond was that the statute of limitations had expired. She never used Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted) as a defense in that case. If, as you say, she does use Rule 12(b)(6) as a defense in federal court, then the pleading has to be different than in the state court.

Sid -- I linked to the Marianne Bond's 2018 motion that you posted on this website.

Please open that link and read the FIRST PARAGRAPH under the "Motion to Dismiss" section. The one that starts with "Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)....."

WRT a link to the document....That's what PACER is for.

July 23, 2020 at 10:50 AM


Hey, Anony.

I believe that technically you are correct about Bond's May 22, 2018 filing. However, at the August 15, 2018 hearing, neither Bond nor Durham D.A. used the Rule 12(b)(6) defense. They both argued technicalities of untimeliness of filing, with the D.A.'s Office also claiming improper service, wrong defendant served, and qualified immunity. Also Judge Thompson, in the hearing transcript never ruled or even mentioned the Rule 12(b)(6) defense.

The uses of the Rule 12(b)(6) defense was jettisoned by Bond as a defense at the hearing because it didn't hold water. It was not based on the existence of probable cause, the absence of malice, or that Bond was not involved in the charge of Larceny of Chose in Action being brought. The element upon which the defense was made challenged that the charge had a favorable outcome... Bond's counsel arguing that although Mangum was found not guilty of Larceny of Chose in Action, she was found guilty of murder. Obvious weakness of the argument is why it was not used at the hearing.

Have you actually seen Bond's Response in federal court? Has it been filed? And, if so, when? If you could give me any info I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
As I said at the outset, I don’t think this case will turn out well for you and Crystal.

July 23, 2020 at 9:54 AM


Hey, Anony.

Could you provide some edification as to which case you are talking about? And to make the discussion more interesting could you provide reasons, if any, for your sentiments?

Anonymous said...

Sid -- The statute of limitations provides an absolute defense. Marianne Bond and the Durham DA's office used it, so they didn't even have to argue the "failure to state a claim" defense, or any other.

Those other defenses weren't "jettisoned" -- they just weren't needed.

And "YES" - Bond's motion to dismiss has been filed -- I said as much on July 22nd. Why are you asking if it has been filed? What part of this sentence:

"Marianne Bond has filed a motion to dismiss for FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM in Mangum's federal court malicious prosecution case."

did you not understand?

And as I stated, all documents for this case are available on PACER. You want to act like an attorney? Pony up and subscribe.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid -- The statute of limitations provides an absolute defense. Marianne Bond and the Durham DA's office used it, so they didn't even have to argue the "failure to state a claim" defense, or any other.

Those other defenses weren't "jettisoned" -- they just weren't needed.

And "YES" - Bond's motion to dismiss has been filed -- I said as much on July 22nd. Why are you asking if it has been filed? What part of this sentence:

"Marianne Bond has filed a motion to dismiss for FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM in Mangum's federal court malicious prosecution case."

did you not understand?

And as I stated, all documents for this case are available on PACER. You want to act like an attorney? Pony up and subscribe.

July 24, 2020 at 9:09 AM


Hey, Anony.

The part I don't understand is ".. filed a motion to dismiss for FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM." To me, it makes no sense for her to try and dismiss using a Rule 12(b)(6) defense rather than what she used at the Durham Superior Court's Civil Division. If the Failure to state a claim defense was valid, it would have been used by both defense counsels in the Durham County Courthouse case.. but neither of them used that defense. That defense was not used because they essentially conceded that all elements of the malicious prosecution claim had been met. Most importantly there was absolutely no probable cause for the charge! Can we agree on that?

I tried in the past to get on PACERMONITOR, but I had problems... I'm not very tech savvy. Also, I do not want to act like an attorney. I'm only helping Crystal because nobody else will.

Nifong Supporter Supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

It appears you may be confused about the best strategy to follow in your latest malicious prosecution lawsuit. Have you asked kenhyderal for advice?

Anonymous said...

Be careful Sid. I think there is a good chance WRAL will drop the hammer on you.

Anonymous said...

Hey Sid, you are awfully slow in releasing comments. That may be one reason many of us lose interest in following your legal adventures.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

In your spare time, you should read Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Anonymous said...

" That defense was not used because they essentially conceded that all elements of the malicious prosecution claim had been met."

Since the statute of limitations is dispositive, they can stipulate that the claims of malicious prosecution are true (even if they aren't), and still win.

Just because they conceded that the elements were true, doesn't mean they are. it just means they chose the concession in order to argue that the statute of limitations had passed.

Why do you have such a difficult time understanding this concept?

just like you continuing to argue that the Larceny of Chose of Action was used elevate the murder charge -- when it's been proven that it could not be used in such a manner.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "Since the statute of limitations is dispositive, they can stipulate that the claims of malicious prosecution are true (even if they aren't), and still win"....................... Try justifying that to a Jury. The only way that can happen is for a Judge telling them, "although it wont make sense to you that's the way it is". Yes, in the US Justice System rules and their manipulation always take precedent over obtaining justice

Anonymous said...

A claim barred by the statute of limitations never gets to a jury.

For purposes of resolving motions to dismiss it is presumed that the facts contained in the complaint are true. The issue is whether there is an absolute defense or other legal impediment that prevents the case from proceeding forward to trial. Motions to dismiss involve issues of law that are decided by a judge.

If the case survives a motion to dismiss (Sid's case won't), then the case moves to trial, where the defendants get to present their defense and the jury gets to render a verdict.

Either way, a jury will never know that motions to dismiss were made or what the outcome of those motions were.

It isn't really hard to understand.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Be careful Sid. I think there is a good chance WRAL will drop the hammer on you.

July 25, 2020 at 10:01 AM


Hey, Anony.

"Drop the hammer?" In what way? Don't you think that if WRAL was capable of dropping a hammer on me that they would have done it long ago? If you could clarify what "dropping the hammer alludes to, then maybe I could provide you with a better reply."

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Hey Sid, you are awfully slow in releasing comments. That may be one reason many of us lose interest in following your legal adventures.


July 25, 2020 at 3:03 PM


Hey, Anony.

Actually, I post comment from commenters as soon as I receive them. My cellphone doesn't provide sound notification when an e-mail is received. There are times when my phone needs rebooting during which no incoming e-mails are displayed. Whatever the reason, I do not intentionally delay posting of comments.

Personally, I try to respond when I have time to do so, as much time is devoted to working towards freeing my fiancee... my top priority.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid,

In your spare time, you should read Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

July 26, 2020 at 4:54 AM


Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the reading suggestion. I did take a look at it and am unfazed by it. True, Crystal may not have physically provided the signature, I am sure that a fair minded court would find no objection.

That being said, a defense based on Rule 11 averring that Mangum did not physically sign her briefs is probably a much stronger defense than any Rule 12(b)(6) defense attorneys could possibly conjure up.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Take another look at Rule 11 and, specifically, paragraphs (b) and (c) and consider how WRAL might respond to the third frivolous lawsuit you have filed. That may be the “hammer” the other poster had in mind.

Do you need further clarification?

Anonymous said...

Sid paying WRAL's legal fees seems fair enough.

Anonymous said...

At least Crystal can claim she was unaware of the Malicious Prosecution case, since she didn't sign the document.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said" "Either way, a jury will never know that motions to dismiss were made or what the outcome of those motions were"......... Thanks for the elucidation. I have zero experience with legal systems in any jurisdiction but as an interested observer, here, I perceive, in the US, a broken system is in place, where obtaining justice by plaintiffs and/or defendants is conditional, as to who you are. Outcomes, can be and are manipulated in order to obtain desired results especially against pro se litigants/defendants or indigent defendants with Court appointed Lawyers who don't really defend but unethically go through the motions, knowing their real role is first to defend the system they are part of while paying only lip-service to the Constitution

Dr. Caligari said...

Dr. Harr:

I have been away from this site for a few months, and I'm back to discover that yoy are up to your old tricks.

If the first malicious prosecution case was barred by the statute of limitations, then it is obvious that a new case will also be barred by the SOL. Not to mention that the case will be bared by res judicata.

And in federal court, a motion to dismiss based on either statute of limitations or res judicata is brought under Rule 12(b)(6). Because a case barred by either of those doctrines fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

I hope this provides some useful elucidation.

Anonymous said...

"I tried in the past to get on PACERMONITOR, but I had problems... I'm not very tech savvy."

And here I thought you'd taken classes at Wake Technical....

PACER (https://pacer.uscourts.gov/) is cheaper -- from what I can tell, PacerMonitor charges you a monthly subscription fee PLUS an extra $0.05 per page beyond what PACER charges.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

What have you been up to lately? Have you been studying Rule 11?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid,

Take another look at Rule 11 and, specifically, paragraphs (b) and (c) and consider how WRAL might respond to the third frivolous lawsuit you have filed. That may be the “hammer” the other poster had in mind.

Do you need further clarification?


July 28, 2020 at 9:53 AM


Hey, Anony.

I just re-read Rule 11, and I must confess that further clarification is required, as I see no hazard.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid paying WRAL's legal fees seems fair enough.

July 28, 2020 at 11:33 AM

Hey, Anony.

I see no reason why I should pay WRAL-5's legal fees.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
Dr. Harr:

I have been away from this site for a few months, and I'm back to discover that yoy are up to your old tricks.

If the first malicious prosecution case was barred by the statute of limitations, then it is obvious that a new case will also be barred by the SOL. Not to mention that the case will be bared by res judicata.

And in federal court, a motion to dismiss based on either statute of limitations or res judicata is brought under Rule 12(b)(6). Because a case barred by either of those doctrines fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

I hope this provides some useful elucidation.

July 28, 2020 at 7:05 PM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

Don't stay away so long... you might miss something.

As you may know, there are exceptions to the statute of limitations that include instances of fraud or mistake. Mangum tried making this argument at her hearing (from memory, as her work product had been denied her by correctional officers)... a hearing which was biased from the start with Cooper appointee Judge Carolyn Thompson being assigned to the case in an eleventh hour black-rober switch.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"I tried in the past to get on PACERMONITOR, but I had problems... I'm not very tech savvy."

And here I thought you'd taken classes at Wake Technical....

PACER (https://pacer.uscourts.gov/) is cheaper -- from what I can tell, PacerMonitor charges you a monthly subscription fee PLUS an extra $0.05 per page beyond what PACER charges.

July 29, 2020 at 9:41 AM


Hey, Anony.

The classes I took at Wake Tech taught me how to use software programs that allows me to post sharlogs, videos, and shar-videos.

When it comes to interacting with sources online, especially that require payment, I am extremely apprehensive... and if interested I seek my daughter's help. I am far from being a computer wizard.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid,

What have you been up to lately? Have you been studying Rule 11?


August 1, 2020 at 10:05 AM


Hey, Anony.

Lately I have been working on briefs for my case and Crystal's. Don't want to miss any deadlines. With any spare time I do have, I try to work on Part Two of my lates shar-video. Also, I've been sending out letters and e-mails in an attempt to do whatever possible to get the media to write about Dr. Wecht's report. Still nothing in the media about it after nine months!! The media simply does not want the general public to hear the truths of her innocence. The need to get her freed has to do with saving her life, as four inmates in her prison have tested positive for COVID-19... this in addition to three correctional officers.

As far as Rule 11, I re-read it again several minutes ago. Still do not appreciate its significance.

guiowen said...

Sidney,
Why do you still call this "Justice 4 Nifong"? It's not as if this blog had anything to do with him. (At least not since 2013) He doesn't seem to care about you or Crystal.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Sidney,
Why do you still call this "Justice 4 Nifong"? It's not as if this blog had anything to do with him. (At least not since 2013) He doesn't seem to care about you or Crystal.

August 2, 2020 at 11:52 AM


Hey, gui, mon ami.

I named this blog site and the grassroots organization (founded in 2008) after Mike Nifong because at the time he had suffered more injustice from the Duke Lacrosse case than anyone else. I think he is aptly honored with the naming because of the immense courage he took in prosecuting a case in which 99.9% of all other prosecutors would have let go... a case in which a financially handicapped black single mother made claims of sexual assault against three white student athletes from families of wealth and privilege, and who were attending a prestigious university.

The extent of the injustice (including being the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the NC State Bar since its inception in 1933 and serving 24-hours in jail on a trumped up contempt of court order) served as an extremely effective lesson to other prosecutors and government officials.

So that is why I use the name and have no intention of changing it, despite several incidents. A contribution I made to a social justice event was returned because of the name of the organization, and the advocacy group Emancipate NC's leader Dawn Blagrove has refused to assist Crystal because my organization is named in honor of Mike Nifong. (She didn't explain why she had a problem with it in lieu of the fact I was seeking help for Mangum and not Nifong.)

Bottom line, I believe Nifong is worthy of the honor and keeping the name is a matter of principle.

Stay safe.

A Ronnie Long Supporter said...

"and the advocacy group Emancipate NC's leader Dawn Blagrove has refused to assist Crystal because my organization is named in honor of Mike Nifong."

All the more reasons why (if you're serious in your advocacy for Crystal Mangum), you should have a separate organization, as I suggested some time ago.

guiowen said...

Sidney,
So you're honoring Mike with this site. Why doesn't he help you? God knows you could use some legal help: you're doing everything wrong.

Anonymous said...

Why did you need to file for an extension of time to respond to Bond's Motion to Dismiss?

Sorry -- Why did CRYSTAL need to file for an extension of time to respond?

kenhyderal said...

@ Guiowen: Former DA Mike Nifong is disbarred and Dr. Harr has been meaninglessly enjoined by the North Carolina State Barr, who incidentally have no jurisdiction over him, from what they call practicing law. Like any citizen, he has the right to work against wrongful convictions and to advocate for that which has been denied. Something he has done tirelessly, both in the case of Mike Nifong, with his wrongful disbarment and for of Crystal Mangum's wrongful conviction for a murder that never happened. Both the politicized Justice Department the and Law Society work, hand in hand, to cover up, the embarrassing truth and perpetuate a broken justice system, which serves their interests so well, at the expense of the poor and the marginalized.

guiowen said...

So why doesn't Sidney help good old Mike to get his license bck? Why don'tyou? Or is that too far out of context for you?

Anonymous said...

While disbarred, Mike Nifong cannot legally represent anyone other tham himself in a court of law.

With that said, he certainly could have aided Sid by reviewing Sid's legal documents to assist Sid in filing them in the correct court, and, for example, making sure they (when needed) stated a claim for which relief could be sought.

Sid has failed each of these relatively simple tasks at least ONCE.

Anonymous said...

Sid -- You going to post any of the motions from the plaintiffs for either your WRAL or Mangum's BOND case?

Anonymous said...

W
h
e
r
e

i
s

S
i
d
?
?
?

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Are you holding out on us? Where are the motions?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid,

Are you holding out on us? Where are the motions?

August 7, 2020 at 7:26 PM


Hey, Anony.

I'm not one to hold out... I believe in total transparency. Keep in mind that I have a staff of one -- me. So I have to manage my time and efforts carefully. Right now I am working on my lawsuit against WRAL-5 and Crystal's lawsuit against Bond, et al. There are at least two brief that I need to file, plus I need to re-serve WRAL-5 News with extra costs and reprinting of the brief and exhibits because they won't accept the summons and complaint by registered mail.

Uploading motions takes time and energy which I lack. Maybe someone with access to PacerMonitor can provide a link.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid -- You going to post any of the motions from the plaintiffs for either your WRAL or Mangum's BOND case?

August 5, 2020 at 2:35 PM


Hey, Anony.

Posting plaintiff briefs takes extra time as it usually includes links to exhibits. Right now am trying to keep atop two different federal court actions. Need to keep attention to prevent either of the cases being disqualified or somehow otherwise damaged by technicalities. Keep in mind that the State and courts do not favor Mangum or me.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
While disbarred, Mike Nifong cannot legally represent anyone other tham himself in a court of law.

With that said, he certainly could have aided Sid by reviewing Sid's legal documents to assist Sid in filing them in the correct court, and, for example, making sure they (when needed) stated a claim for which relief could be sought.

Sid has failed each of these relatively simple tasks at least ONCE.

August 4, 2020 at 6:52 AM


Hey, Anony.

What you say is true, but I know Mike Nifong is aware of the animus against him by the State and courts, and he is vigilant to keep from running afoul of any legality, regardless of how minor. Therefore, I have never attempted to seek any legal advice or legal help from him. There's a possibility he might help me with Crystal's case, but I don't want to put him in a predicament wherein the State or courts would vindictively come after him. He has suffered far too much already... and for doing nothing more than his job.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
So why doesn't Sidney help good old Mike to get his license bck? Why don'tyou? Or is that too far out of context for you?

August 3, 2020 at 10:01 PM


Hey, gui, mon ami.

First of all, right now I am too busy working on my case and Crystal's case with trying to help Mike get his law license reinstated. Crystal's case is most urgent as she's still incarcerated... with COVID-19 lurking. That case, and my case against WRAL 5 take up all my time.

Second, Mike is free and has no desire to return to law even if his license was reinstated. I still feel that it is important for the State Bar to reinstate his license as a restorative justice move... as he was unfairly disbarred. Nifong's disbarment was meant to serve as a deterrent and prevent prosecutors from acting too independent... even, and especially when their actions place truth, merit, and principle over power.

Clearly, because of the way Mike Nifong was treated, current Durham D.A. Satana Deberry, though publicly and boldly talking about justice, is afraid to even meet or talk to me -- especially about Crystal's case.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Why did you need to file for an extension of time to respond to Bond's Motion to Dismiss?

Sorry -- Why did CRYSTAL need to file for an extension of time to respond?

August 3, 2020 at 2:03 PM


Hey, Anony.

Because Crystal is incarcerated, especially during the coronavirus pandemic, the lag between when something is filed in court and the time she receives it and subsequently sends it to me can take a matter of weeks. Then there takes time for me to draft the document in phone consultation with Mangum. Whereas attorneys have availability to electronic filing and receiving filed documents from the courts, which are instantaneously, Mangum and I are at a distinct disadvantage.

Due to the weakness of their defenses, Defendants will utilize to the fullest any technicality to their advantage in order to prevail when they are unlikely to prevail based on facts, truth, and merits of the case. So I cannot therefore allow a filing to be one second late or the defendants will use it to the fullest to their advantage.

That is why I filed the Motion to Extend Time to File Mangum's brief.

Capiche?

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Sidney,
So you're honoring Mike with this site. Why doesn't he help you? God knows you could use some legal help: you're doing everything wrong.

August 3, 2020 at 12:29 PM


Hey, gui, mon ami.

I think that kenhyderal provided an accurate response to your question:

Blogger kenhyderal said...
@ Guiowen: Former DA Mike Nifong is disbarred and Dr. Harr has been meaninglessly enjoined by the North Carolina State Barr, who incidentally have no jurisdiction over him, from what they call practicing law. Like any citizen, he has the right to work against wrongful convictions and to advocate for that which has been denied. Something he has done tirelessly, both in the case of Mike Nifong, with his wrongful disbarment and for of Crystal Mangum's wrongful conviction for a murder that never happened. Both the politicized Justice Department the and Law Society work, hand in hand, to cover up, the embarrassing truth and perpetuate a broken justice system, which serves their interests so well, at the expense of the poor and the marginalized.

August 3, 2020 at 2:34 PM

Nifong Supporter said...


A Ronnie Long Supporter said...
"and the advocacy group Emancipate NC's leader Dawn Blagrove has refused to assist Crystal because my organization is named in honor of Mike Nifong."

All the more reasons why (if you're serious in your advocacy for Crystal Mangum), you should have a separate organization, as I suggested some time ago.

August 3, 2020 at 6:33 AM


Hey, Ronnie Long Supporter.

I am hopeful, and I believe, that Mr. Long will be released soon following the decision by the en banc Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is shameful that it should go this far... that the Fourth Circuit panel would deny the appeal and that the NC Attorney General Josh Stein would even fight against it. Stein should have joined with the Duke Innocence project in the appeal.

With regards to the name of my organization, it is to honor a district attorney who risked everything by doing the right thing. Dawn Blagrove, I believe, used the name as an excuse not to help Crystal. Like the NAACP, ACLU, SCLC, innocence projects, and others, she is afraid for herself and her organization (Emancipate NC) to get involved in doing the right thing for Crystal. Ms. Blagrove was given the opportunity to express her opposition to Nifong's name, but gave no explanation or reason.

Although Mangum's case is worthy of its own social/justice organization, I am satisfied keeping all my advocacy work under Nifong's name.

With fingers crossed, let's pray for justice for Ronnie Long. The ruling should be soon. (It shouldn't take that long.)

Anonymous said...

Beware, Sid. WRAL is going to drop the hammer.

Nifong Supporter Supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

Has the Committee on Justice For Mike Nifong endorsed a candidate in the 2020 North Carolina gubernatorial election?

Anonymous said...

Do you mean “capisci”?

Anonymous said...

Hey Sid. When’s the big day?