justice4nifong: Sidney Harr and Crystal Mangum v. Durham D.A. Satana Deberry: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

Sunday, May 4, 2025

Sidney Harr and Crystal Mangum v. Durham D.A. Satana Deberry: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

125 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

May the fourth be with you.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment was filed based upon revelations from an excellent online article published on April 29, 2025 in the Durham Voice. Keep in mind that the telos behind this lawsuit is to force Durham D.A. Satana Deberry to listen to my presentation regarding truths of Crystal Mangum's absolute innocence in the 2011 death of her boyfriend Reginald Daye.

Specifically, I would be interested in comments regarding the Durham Voice article and its relevance in this case.

As you were.; May 4, 2025 at 6:14 AM
Anonymous said...: NC State Bar rule 3.8 is for prosecutors in a criminal case. DA DeBerry wasn’t Mangum’s prosecutor.

Wecht’s opinion isn’t new evidence. It’s an opinion based on evidence that was available at the the time of the trial. Evidence that was not withheld from Mangum or her defense.; May 4, 2025 at 7:24 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: I thought that the Durham Voice article was fairly balanced.

It provided a useful summary of the flawed medical treatment Mr. Daye received, noting specifically the errors that were committed including the esophageal intubation, brain death and removal from life support. I believe that the State accepts the facts included in that summary.

Importantly, the article addresses the ramifications of the law. Under the summary of the law provided in the article by Mangum's attorney, she remains responsible for Mr. Daye's death unless there was an intervening cause.

Mangum’s state-appointed attorney, Daniel Meier, said her murder conviction was based on proximate cause — meaning the jury found that the stabbing directly led to Daye’s death. Under North Carolina law, Meier said, medical errors are considered foreseeable and not an independent cause of death.

Meier said he thinks proximate cause is “an insane law” and that North Carolina has a broad reading of it.

“Duke killed him,” Meier said.

In reality, under the law, the stabbing need not directly lead to Mr. Daye's death. It is enough that the stabbing set the subsequent events in motion--unless there is an intervening cause.

The article discusses Dr. Wecht's report, and unlike Dr. Harr, correctly summarizes Dr. Wecht's conclusion:

Wecht wrote that Daye died from complications of delirium tremens – not the stabbing. Doctors expected Daye to make a full recovery post-surgery, and therefore the delirium tremens was an intervening cause of death.

Dr. Wecht focuses on the onset of delirium tremens as an intervening cause. Dr. Harr incorrectly focuses on the esophageal intubation as an intervening cause--a conclusion that clearly conflicts with the dominant interpretation of North Carolina law discussed by Mr. Meier--medical errors cannot be an intervening cause.

Incredibly, since he began his work on this case more than a decade ago, Dr. Harr has steadfastly avoided any consideration of the law. When relevant cases ( and Holsclaw) were discussed on this blog, Dr. Harr merely asserted that he did not believe that the case law discussed was applicable. He did no research to support his opinion. He ignored all references to these and other similar cases in filings by the state. He has made no attempt to understand the arguments raised by the state.

The article suggests a possible reversible error by the judge in the trial.

Meier said the judge determined the defense could not raise the issue of medical malpractice at trial

I can understand a conclusion that this ruling is appropriate if there were no intervening cause. However, if Dr. Wecht is correct, and the onset of delirium tremens was an intervening cause, one could reach a different conclusion. This argument requires an understanding of the law and the identification of cases that support Dr. Wecht's conclusion.

Unfortunately, Dr. Harr refuses to consider the law.; May 4, 2025 at 10:07 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

C'mon... get serious. D.A. Deberry was not Mangum's prosecutor. That's not in dispute. However, she is a prosecutor and should abide by Rule 3.8 regarding responsibilities for prosecutors.

Dr. Wecht's opinion was not available at the time of trial, and what he said in his October 25, 2019 report regarding Reginald Daye's cause and manner of death was not presented at Mangum's trial. In fact, the words "esophageal intubation" were never uttered by anyone at trial.; May 4, 2025 at 12:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Doesn’t matter. The documents he based his opinion on were available at the time of the trial. His opinion is not new evidence, simply a new opinion.

You read only what you want and ignore the rest. That’s always been your problem, and it’s why you continually fail.
CGM would’ve been better off without your so-called “advocacy”. She’ll realize that in 10 months or so when she has a chance to read this blog.; May 4, 2025 at 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Why are you arguing about somebody not abiding by the same set of rules you don’t abide by?; May 4, 2025 at 4:21 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Marina Lemmons.

Thank you for your well thought-out and enlightening arguments. Such comments as yours (and others, i.e., kenhyderal, dhall, Prince Humperdinck) bring real value to this blog site from which readers can appreciate and benefit.

I will try to address your statements in order of presentation. First, I wholly agree that the article was extremely well-written and balanced. The best article I have ever read about Ms. Mangum.

However, I disagree that the State accepts the facts of Reginald Daye's death. Both medical examiners Dr. Clay Nichols and Dr. Michelle Aurelius insist that a complication(s) from the stab wound led to his death. They refuse to accept that Daye died after being electively removed from life-support which he was on because of delayed recognition of an esophageal intubation by staff. Clearly the stab wound had nothing to do with Daye's brain-dead/comatose state.

As far as an intervening cause, the esophageal intubation that went unrecognized could be considered the proximate or intervening cause. If not for the esophageal intubation, Daye would have never been brain-dead, which was the reason for his removal from life-support that was his direct cause of death. That he wound up in the hospital because of the nonfatal stab wound would not, in my opinion, be considered a proximate cause of death. Fact is that any reason causing his hospitalization would have had the same outcome had he been intubated in his esophagus.

Mangum's attorney Daniel Meier is correct in his statement that "Duke killed him." Unfortunately, he did not aggressively argue that at her trial... the words "esophageal intubation" never uttered during trial.

I am not in disagreement with Dr. Wecht when he states complications from delirium tremens was the proximate or intervening cause of Daye's death. It was the treatment of delirium tremens, which included the esophageal intubation, being the the proximate/intervening cause of death. However, when discussing the intervening cause of death, it is easier to cut to the chase by simply stating that the esophageal intubation was the intervening cause. It is easier for the general public to understand that a misplaced tube cause brain-death rather than chronic alcoholism or delirium tremens. Clearly the chronic alcoholic history and the delirium tremens set the table for errant intubation, but alcoholism and delirium tremens alone would not have resulted in Daye's brain-death.

I am unaware of the judge's instruction to defense counsel that he could not use medical malpractice as a defense. Incontrovertibly it was medical malpractice that was the proximate or intervening cause of Mr. Daye's death. Such a ruling by the judge would significantly hamper Mangum's ability to have a fair trial.

Finally, I do not object to case law. Your assessment is true that I do not find either Welch or Holsclaw to be of relevance or applicable regarding circumstances in Mangum's case.

Thank you again for your comment.; May 5, 2025 at 5:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Though the documents upon which Mangum's jury found her guilty of second-degree murder were available at the time of her 2013 trial, Dr. Wecht's October 25, 2019 opinion was not available at trial and his opinions were not presented to the jury at the time of trial. Keep in mind the words "esophageal intubation" were never mentioned during Mangum's trial.; May 5, 2025 at 5:42 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Don't clearly understand the question. Further edification is required.; May 5, 2025 at 5:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Wecht's opinion is just that, an opinion. It's based off the same documents that were available at the time of the trial. His opinion IS NOT new evidence . It doesn't matter than "esophageal intubation" was never mentioned in the trial. It was in the medical records that were available to both the prosecutors and the defense.
You had information that could have lead to CGM's murder case being reviewed and purposely chose not to pursue it.; May 5, 2025 at 6:13 AM
Anonymous said...: You (falsely) accuse DA Deberry of not abiding by the NC State Bar rules (specifically NC State Bar rule 3.8) , when you (truly, as your were jailed for it) violate NC State Bar rules (specifically NC State Bar rule 5.5).
Consider yourself elucidated.; May 5, 2025 at 7:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

There's a big difference between a district attorney not following basic standards for prosecutors and my alleged violation of unauthorized practice of law. Prosecutors should always be held to the standard of a minister of justice and not merely try to prevail in a ruling and to prevent a conviction from being overturned.

In my case, I abided by the 2013 court order until Mangum was abandoned by the NC Prisoner Legal Services in 2017 at which time I was unable to retain legal counsel for her. The NC Innocence Inquiry Commission should have taken her case but wouldn't even discuss it with me. Other innocence projects refused to talk to me about representing Mangum, as did civil rights/social justice organizations. The State has failed Ms. Mangum by refusing to allow her to have Bar-accredited representation of which she is deserving. It is under these circumstances that I reluctantly provided Mangum with assistance.

You need to further keep in mind that Wake Superior Court Judge Clayton D. Somers had no standing in my case... as Mangum and my Petition for Judicial Review case was assigned to Judge Matthew Houston. It was Houston, not Somers, who had the discretion as to whether to file a Show Cause Order for me.

Surely you are not naïve enough to believe that Judge Somers' Show Cause order against me was independently made for violating the 2013 injunctive order. That was merely a pretext for the purpose of assuring I was in jail at the time of the scheduled hearing and would therefore be unable to attend and testify.

Either Judge Somers interfered with Judge Houston's case with an outcome in which Mangum's case was compromised by my inability to testify, or Judges Somers and Houston worked in concert to orchestrate a situation wherein I would not be available to testify. Which do you think it is?; May 5, 2025 at 12:42 PM
Marina Lemmons said...: Dr. Harr,

Thank you for your response. It highlights your refusal to learn from your mistakes.

The issue of proximate cause is critical to the analysis of Ms. Mangum’s guilt or innocence. Walt raised this issue after you posted the medical report covering Mr. Daye’s treatment. That report demonstrated that Mr. Daye had been given an esophageal intubation, which led to brain death. He died when he was removed from life support. You concluded that Ms. Mangum was not responsible for his death due to the intubation.

Walt highlighted several cases, including Welch. He concluded that under NC law, Ms. Mangum is responsible for Mr. Daye’s death unless an intervening cause severed her legal responsibility. Walt noted that under NC law, medical errors, such as the esophageal intubation, are not intervening causes. Other lawyers on this site agreed with Walt’s conclusion. Mr. Meier reaches the same conclusion: medical errors are considered foreseeable and not an independent cause of death.

You immediately rejected this case as inapplicable with no research to support your conclusion. Your argument was essentially that Welch involved a stabbing victim who required a transfusion. Because Mr. Daye did not require a transfusion, the case was irrelevant. Your flippant analysis demonstrated your lack of understanding of how case law is used in establishing legal principals.

Your misunderstanding of the law as it relates to proximate cause has made a difficult task impossible. You have chosen to focus on arguments guaranteed to fail.

Consider your responses to my post:

However, I disagree that the State accepts the facts of Reginald Daye's death. Both medical examiners Dr. Clay Nichols and Dr. Michelle Aurelius insist that a complication(s) from the stab wound led to his death.

The state concluded there was no intervening cause that severed Ms. Mangum’s legal responsibility for Mr. Daye’s death. Under this legal view, the onset of delirium tremens, the esophageal incubation, Mr.Daye’s brain death, and his removal from life support are all “complications from the stab wound.” The state raised Welch as relevant case law. It is consistent with comments made by Dr. Nichols and Ms.Coggins-Franks. Many have discussed this on this blog.

the esophageal intubation that went unrecognized could be considered the proximate or intervening cause.

it is easier to cut to the chase by simply stating that the esophageal intubation was the intervening cause.

it was medical malpractice that was the proximate or intervening cause of Mr. Daye's death

No. Dr. Wecht identified the onset of delirium tremens as an intervening cause because he realized that medical errors are not an intervening cause. Your statements are simply wrong under the law.

You failed to use Dr. Wecht’s opinion properly. You should have identified case law that supported his conclusion that the onset of delirium terms was an intervening cause that severed Ms. Mangum’s liability.; May 5, 2025 at 3:34 PM
Anonymous said...: It wasn’t an “alleged” violation- you admitted to it.

“ Either Judge Somers interfered with Judge Houston's case with an outcome in which Mangum's case was compromised by my inability to testify, or Judges Somers and Houston worked in concert to orchestrate a situation wherein I would not be available to testify. Which do you think it is?”

Neither. You obviously don’t know how an order to show cause works, and you wouldn’t have been allowed to testify at Mangum’s hearing. It was a civil case, and these type of hearings focus on legal arguments and presented evidence, not on individual testimony.; May 5, 2025 at 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...: FWIW, Sid's favorite website, PACERMonitor, doesn't have this motion listed. It shows that the last action is from Wednesday, April 30, 2025.; May 6, 2025 at 9:17 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Surely at a hearing either party would be allowed to call a witness to testify on his/her behalf. Besides, on the witness stand I would be able to present evidence about Mangum's innocence. That is why it was so important for the court to assure I would be unavailable for the hearing by placing me in jail.; May 7, 2025 at 4:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid must have enjoyed jail, cause drafting and filing stuff like this on behalf of Crystal violates that restraining order.; May 7, 2025 at 11:17 AM
Anonymous said...: It totally depends on the type of hearing -- In North Carolina, a Rule 12 motion to dismiss (which this was) does not involve witness testimony.
Now, if the judge determines that there is a valid claim and the case should proceed, you can be called to testify at a later hearing.

A 5 minute google search would have explained this -- but as you've stated a number of times, you're not bothering to do any research.; May 7, 2025 at 3:44 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Ever since I had a rambunctious disagreement with the Clerk of Federal Court several months ago over its obstructive actions preventing the issuance of simple subpoenas for Ms. Mangum to issue, I have steered clear of the Federal Courthouse. I want to make it clear this is no reflection on the deputy clerks who have always been pleasant and helpful.

Because I do not visit the courthouse I am unaware of any April 30th filing and have not received any correspondence from the Federal Court since then. As a result of not manually filing briefs, including motions, I am forced to file by mail... almost always by certified.

On Saturday, May 3, 2025, I certified-mailed the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment to the Federal Court's clerk from a Raleigh post office. Because Anony apparently questions the veracity of my filing, I will provide a LINK: Receipt of Certified-Mail. As you will note, the estimated delivery date is today, Wednesday, May 7, 2025. Feel free to use the USPS tracking system to see when it is delivered.

Also, with regards to enjoying jail, Anony must remember that I am a party in this action and ergo cannot be arrested for filing a motion in the case. Please keep in mind that the only reason I was arrested before was for the purpose of preventing me to be present at Mangum's hearing and testifying about the case. Violation of the 2013 court order was a pretext for achieving that objective.

Let me know if further edification is required.; May 7, 2025 at 6:31 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Marina Lemmons.

It is my opinion that Welch is being used in a broad sense when in actuality it is very restrictive. For example it reads: "A defendant will be held criminally responsible for second-degree murder if his act caused or directly contributed to the victim's death." The stab wound did not cause or directly contribute to Daye's brain-death... which was the reason he was electively removed from life-support a week later and died.

Further Welch states: "To escape responsibility based on an intervening cause, the defendant must show that the intervening act was 'the sole cause of death.' " The esophageal intubation which went unrecognized was the intervening cause of Daye's brain-death. The stab wound did not cause Daye's brain death... the intervening esophageal intubation relieved Mangum of any legal liability in Daye's demise.

Ms. Lemmons, is it your opinion that had the initial intubation been properly placed in Daye's trachea that he would have subsequently become brain-dead? The question is what caused Daye's brain-death... the steak knife wound or the endotracheal tube misplacement? Dr. Wecht and I believe the latter.; May 7, 2025 at 6:59 PM
Marina Lemmons said...: Dr. Harr:

Thank you for discussing the most important issue--one that you have steadfastly avoided for more than 10 years.

Ms. Lemmons, is it your opinion that had the initial intubation been properly placed in Daye's trachea that he would have subsequently become brain-dead?Under North Carolina law, Meier said, medical errors are considered foreseeable and not an independent cause of death.

Your conclusion conflicts with the conclusions of numerous lawyers who have addressed this issue (including Dr. Wecht, whose conclusion you continue to misrepresent). Explain why we should take the legal opinion of a "lay advocate" who has done no research over the opinions of numerous attorneys?

One last question: why have you not discussed this legal issue in any of your filings, including ones in response to filings in which the state specifically raised this issue?; May 8, 2025 at 5:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous
It totally depends on the type of hearing -- In North Carolina, a Rule 12 motion to dismiss (which this was) does not involve witness testimony.
Now, if the judge determines that there is a valid claim and the case should proceed, you can be called to testify at a later hearing.

A 5 minute google search would have explained this -- but as you've stated a number of times, you're not bothering to do any research.
May 7, 2025 at 3:44 PM

Hey, Anony.

It appears to me that N.C.G.S. Rule 12 deals with defenses and objections available to a defendant and has nothing to do with a hearing. At any hearing, I would imagine that either party can call witnesses to support their positions... after all, isn't that the purpose of a hearing?; May 8, 2025 at 6:06 AM
Anonymous said...: "It appears to me".
See? That's your first problem.
This hearing dealt with defenses to the complaint itself, specifically lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. These hearings don't directly address the admissibility of evidence or witness testimony.

Do your research...Or ask your good friend Mike Nifong.; May 8, 2025 at 9:07 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: Dr. Harr:

You inadvertently edited out my reply to your question and some of the more detailed response. I do not have a copy, so I cannot replicate it. .

I noted that your question was moronic and that you owe me an apology. No thinking person would conclude that Mr. Daye would have become brain dead with a proper intubation. I can only conclude that you are not conducting this discussion in good faith.

The more important question is what medical condition precipitated the intubation. Dr. Wecht concluded that it was the onset of delirium tremens. He identified this as an intervening cause. The state apparently believes that everything that occurred in the hospital, including the onset of delirium tremens, was a "complication of the stab wound." In other words, Mr. Daye suffered this condition because he was improperly treated while recovering from the stab wound. As result, they concluded there was no intervening cause.

I believe the only way that the intubation would itself be an intervening cause is if either the esophageal intubation was deliberate or there was no medical event that precipitated the intubation (they simply did one for no reason). Otherwise, medical errors are "foreseeable" and are not themselves intervening causes.; May 8, 2025 at 1:56 PM
dhall said...: Dr. Harr - Your motion for summary judgment was added on the afternoon of May 6th -- I'm sure that because you mailed it on a weekend, it took a few days for them to get it logged.
You claim this was a "Hearing on Crystal Mangum's Petition for Judicial Review of the NC Office of Administrative Hearings".
It wasn't. It was a hearing on Judger Nelson's motion to dismiss.
I think Anonymous @May 7, 2025 at 3:44 PM, although I'd like to see his source(s) for this -- I'd like to see your sources that show why you should be allowed to testify at the hearing on Judge Nelson's motion to dismiss as well.; May 9, 2025 at 5:13 AM
Anonymous said...: You can't be arrested for filing a motion on your behalf. Adding Crystal's name to it makes it the unauthorized practice of law, which again subjects you to contempt.; May 9, 2025 at 7:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey dhall -- My sources? Both you and Sid need to google "North Carolina civil case witness testimony during motion to dismiss hearing".; May 9, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous
You can't be arrested for filing a motion on your behalf. Adding Crystal's name to it makes it the unauthorized practice of law, which again subjects you to contempt.
May 9, 2025 at 7:51 AM

Hey, Anony.

Stop nit-picking!! There is no criminality with two non-lawyers filing a pro se motion if only one of them types and manually files a document. You're grasping at straws. As Trump sycophants would say, "It's a nothing-burger."; May 10, 2025 at 4:26 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous
It totally depends on the type of hearing -- In North Carolina, a Rule 12 motion to dismiss (which this was) does not involve witness testimony.
Now, if the judge determines that there is a valid claim and the case should proceed, you can be called to testify at a later hearing.

A 5 minute google search would have explained this -- but as you've stated a number of times, you're not bothering to do any research.
May 7, 2025 at 3:44 PM

Hey, Anony.

Can we stipulate that an actual hearing was held in a Wake County Superior courtroom on January 27, 2025?

The purpose of the hearing was not about the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss... it was about the Judicial Review of Mangum's Petition disagreeing with Judge Nelson's Final Decision in the contested case.

Where do you get the idea that the hearing was about Defendant's Motion to Dismiss? I do not believe I missed anything on this.; May 10, 2025 at 4:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Mea culpa. My bad. From the actual transcript, it does appear that the hearing was about the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. I should've referred to the transcript before addressing the issue. To quote former Texas Governor Rick Perry, "Oopsie."

I was confused because of the Judge Houston's issuance to Mangum of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum.; May 10, 2025 at 4:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Be honest- you were confused because you didn’t bother to read the damn transcript .

Do you understand now that you would not have been allowed to testify at the motion to dismiss hearing?; May 10, 2025 at 8:42 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

Commenters have pointed out to me, to my chagrin, that the January 27, 2025 hearing was about Judge Nelson's Motion to Dismiss rather than Mangum's Petition for Judicial Review. This, I find to be even more disturbing. What this tells me is that Wake Superior Court Judge Matthew Houston would rather dismiss Mangum's case based on a dispositive motion rather than tackling the issues of merits in a judicial review of the Judge Nelson's Final Decision on the contested case.

In all of my dealings with the justice system involving Mangum's and my filings, there has never been a courtroom hearing to address a Motion to Dismiss. So despite that opening remark by the judge in the January 27, 2025 hearing, my mind just automatically viewed the hearing as being about judicial review.

Why not simply have a hearing on the issue itself rather than the Motion to Dismiss? I would venture that the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is an a rarity in the extreme... and clearly it would signal the weakness of the matter upon which the dispositive motion is brought. Thank you, Anony and dhall, for bringing this to my attention

As you were.; May 10, 2025 at 8:48 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: Dr. Harr asked:

I ask that you present one of the most egregious misrepresentations or flat out lies.

dhall responded:

Here's a flat out lie: Felony Murder.

I will add a few more egregious misrepresentations (I do not classify them as flat out lies only because I believe that Dr. Harr may genuinely believe them):

1. The esophageal intubation was an intervening cause. (Under NC law, a medical error is not an intervening cause because medical error is “foreseeable” in any treatment.)

2. Dr. Wecht identified the esophageal intubation as an intervening cause. (Dr. Wecht identified the onset of delirium tremens as an intervening cause. The delirium tremens required intubation as treatment. This may actually be a flat out lie: Dr. Harr concedes that he is restating Dr. Wecht’s conclusion to “cut to the chase” in a way that the “general public” can more easily understand.)

3. Dr. Wecht’s report proves Ms. Mangum’s absolute innocence. (Dr. Wecht’s report is an opinion. An opinion does not constitute proof.); May 10, 2025 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Wow…Calling you a moron would be an insult to morons.
Motions to dismiss are pre trial motions. The court will always address these motions before a hearing “on the issue itself”.
The Hearing Process:
1. The defendant files a motion to dismiss with the court, outlining the legal grounds for the dismissal.
2. The judge will review the motion, any supporting documentation, and arguments from the opposing party.
3. The court may hold a hearing where both sides present arguments and evidence related to the motion.
4. The judge will then make a decision on the motion, either granting or denying it.
5. If granted, the case ends. If denied, the case continues.

You don’t read the damn transcript of the hearing and you don’t bother to research about the hearing, yet here you are bitching about it.; May 10, 2025 at 10:29 AM
dhall said...: Insults aside, that’s an excellent synopsis of the hearing process. Dr. Harr, the key takeaway here is steps 2 and 3.

The hearing deals ONLY with arguments for and against the motion to dismiss.

It’s the judge’s decision to hold the hearing where both sides are present.

Rather than complaining, you should be thankful that Crystal Mangum was given the chance to explain in person why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. From the transcript, she appears to have done a poor job presenting that explanation.; May 10, 2025 at 11:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Marina Lemmons.

Where's the love? To quote Elvis: "Don't be cruel."

Seriously, I don't know how I could have deleted part of your comment. I merely click a button to publish a comment or to reject a comment. There's no way to modify a comment of which I am aware. I guess it is possible to inadvertently deleted part of a comment, but I do not know how.

At issue with Daye's brain-death is what exactly caused it. I submit that Daye's chronic alcoholism did not cause his brain-death... that Daye's delirium tremens did not cause his brain-death... that it was not a so-called "complications" of the stab wound that caused Daye's brain-death. It was the esophageal Intubation that went unrecognized that caused Daye's brain-death.

Clearly, the stab wound to Daye's left side did not produce conditions for the intubation. Keep in mind that Daye was properly intubated prior to his surgery on April 3, 2011. He survived that because the intubation was properly placed in the airway and not esophagus. In short, everything that happened to Daye during his hospitalization cannot be attributed to the stab wound, which is the only argument the State can make in order to support its trumped up charge.

I do not believe it is relevant as to whether or not the endotracheal tube was intentionally placed in his esophagus. Fact is that tube placement in the esophagus was the direct cause of Daye's brain-death.; May 11, 2025 at 5:33 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

It is clear that Judge Houston would rather adjudicate on the issue of viability of Mangum's complaint on strictly interpreting technicalities rather than on the merits of Mangum's petition for judicial review. By granting Judge Linda F. Nelson's Motion to Dismiss, therefore he did not have to address the issues of reviewing Nelson's Final Decision. But even then, it was necessary to prevent me from testifying by my jailing in order to achieve the desired result. I do not know for a fact that Judge Houston was in on the plot to have me in the hoosegow during the date of the hearing, but based on certain issues I am inclined to believe so.; May 11, 2025 at 5:43 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

Thanks for the info. I believe the estimated date of delivery was on May 6th, so it was probably filed immediately.

With regards to a hearing on a motion to dismiss, I do not believe witnesses are not allowed. I will have to study the issue more. But, why have a hearing if one or both sides are not allowed to call witnesses? To me, the purpose of having a hearing is to hear from the parties and their witnesses. Otherwise, evidence could be presented to a judge in briefs and their exhibits of evidence.; May 11, 2025 at 6:23 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

You will note that I referenced the transcript as being "unofficial." That is because I was the one who transcribed it from an audio recording on a disk... as opposed to a professional transcriptionist.

I am not sure that witnesses would not be allowed to testify at a hearing on a motion to dismiss. When I have the opportunity, I will look into it further.; May 11, 2025 at 6:28 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

It is a rarity, indeed, for Mangum to get a hearing on a dispositive motion... This being the only one, I believe. Again, I would argue: Why not allow witnesses to appear at a hearing? I need to review the rules regarding the issue of witnesses testifying at a Motion to Dismiss hearing. Am still focused on trying to obtain an attorney for Crystal.; May 11, 2025 at 6:36 AM
dhall said...: As anonymous pointed out, the hearing dealt with testimony and evidence specific to the motion to dismiss.
At this point, the defense is arguing that even if the facts in Mangum’s complaint are true, Judge Nelson has absolute immunity protecting her from civil lawsuits arising from her official judicial actions, and the court does not have the legal authority to hear the specific type of case being brought before it.
If the defense is stipulating that the allegations in the original complaint are true, why would anyone need to be called to testify?

I believe Mangum was at the hearing when Judge Sternlicht ruled on a motion to dismiss.; May 11, 2025 at 7:32 AM
dhall said...: Thanks for posting this, although I doubt Dr. Harr will address any of these in a meaningful manner.; May 11, 2025 at 7:36 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: Dr. Harr:

Your refusal to engage in an honest discussion about what constitutes an intervening cause under NC law is typical of your approach to the law in general.

It is clear that the esophageal intubation was the direct cause of Mr. Daye’s brain death. No one disputes that fact. However, your constant repetition of this does nothing to address the critical legal question.

Numerous attorneys on this blog and elsewhere have stated that medical errors, even errors that rise to the level of malpractice, do not represent intervening causes under NC law. Under North Carolina law, Meier said, medical errors are considered foreseeable and not an independent cause of death.

You have concluded otherwise. You readily admit that you are not trained in the law and have done no research to support your opinion. Your legal opinions on other legal questions have been repeatedly rejected in courts of law and by lawyers commenting on this blog.

Why should the readers of this blog accept the legal opinion of an untrained “lay advocate” who offers no support for his opinion over the legal opinions of attorneys that are supported by case law?

You have been providing legal support to Ms. Mangum for more than 10 years. Incredibly, you have avoided any discussion of this issue, even when the State has raised the issue in its filings.

Why do you believe the most effective legal argument is one that avoids any discussion of the most critical legal issue involved?

Please answer the two questions in bold.

I will regard any response in which you simply restate the fact that the esophageal intubation was the direct cause of Mr. Daye’s brain death as an indication that you have no desire to engage in an honest discussion.; May 11, 2025 at 10:05 AM
dhall said...: “ You need to further keep in mind that Wake Superior Court Judge Clayton D. Somers had no standing in my case... as Mangum and my Petition for Judicial Review case was assigned to Judge Matthew Houston. It was Houston, not Somers, who had the discretion as to whether to file a Show Cause Order for me”

The order to show cause was filed by the NC State Bar. Judge Somers did not have anything to do with the filing- he just happened to be the judge for the hearing. In all likelihood because he has never had any involvement with Dr. Harr’s previous legal activities.; May 11, 2025 at 12:38 PM
dhall said...: I posted earlier that it was the NC State Bar, not Judge Somers that filed the Show Cause order.
I should note that it was Dr. Pascarella and his counsel that notified the court about Sid's UPL and permanent injunction that lead to the Show Cause order.; May 11, 2025 at 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Wait….You transcribed this from an audio recording and didn’t know this was a hearing on Judge Nelson’s motion to dismiss?

You listened to the entire hearing, and still thought it was something else…Words fail me.; May 11, 2025 at 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid -- Did you ever post DA Deberry's motion to dismiss or your response to it? I've looked back over the last few blogs and don't see anything.; May 12, 2025 at 10:48 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: I am calling on Dr. Harr to recognize the winner of his challenge to identify the complications from the stab wound to which Dr. Aurelius referred. An anonymous commenter provided the correct answer less than two hours after Dr. Harr announced the challenge.

I encourage the winner to donate the winnings towards the payment of any fine that Dr. Harr may be assessed in connection with his violation of the court order.

I offer my congratulations to the winner and encourage other posters to extend their congratulations as well.

The challenge:

Nifong Supporter

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

I will write a cashier's check in the amount of one hundred-fifty dollars ($150.00) and send it to any commenter who can explain, to my satisfaction, the specific complication(s) from the stab wound Reginald Daye sustained and/or its treatment that led to his death. The explanation must contain facts of the case.

Keep in mind that my assessment, buttressed with agreement by Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, is that no complication(s) resulted from the wound Ms. Mangum inflicted or its treatment. That it was the errant esophageal tube placement in treating Mr. Daye's delirium tremens which led to his brain-death/comatose state and subsequent removal from life-support and his actual death.

This contest is open to all individuals aged 18 and over.

As you were.

July 6, 2024 at 4:42 AM

The winning answer:

Anonymous

Sidney, you keep asking "What complications?" From Dr. Aurelius's affidavit it is quite clear. Mr. Daye's complications were alcohol withdrawal caused by him having to be hospitalized because Mangum stabbed him. You may try to say this is a totally different problem not tied to the stab wound, but it is not. Dr. Wecht's analogy in his report, stated that someone with terminal cancer on the way to treatment dies in a car accident and thus the accident caused that person's death not the cancer. This analogy is quite weak in my opinion and does not relate to Mr. Daye's death in any way. Mr. Daye died because a chain of events happened to him after being stabbed and admitted to the hospital. I believe that if you would have just let the legal representation Mangum had after her trial continue, without your intervention, then she might be freed or at least a reduced sentence. You could have started your mucking around after all her legal attempts failed with a real lawyer. But Mangum and you for some reason did not let that happen and thus all is lost. But you got great satisfaction from filing many lawsuits that were destined to fail.

July 6, 2024 at 6:13 AM; May 12, 2025 at 5:48 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous
Wait….You transcribed this from an audio recording and didn’t know this was a hearing on Judge Nelson’s motion to dismiss?

You listened to the entire hearing, and still thought it was something else…Words fail me.
May 11, 2025 at 6:22 PM

Hey, Anony.

That is absolutely correct. Because Judge Nelson's July 9, 2024 Final Decision gave notice that Mangum could appeal the decision by filing the Petition, I did not think she would then file a Motion to Dismiss it. Then, on September 11, 2024, Nelson filed a one-page Motion to Dismiss with a Certificate of Service to Ms. Mangum only. Any correspondence sent to inmates in prison is questionable as to when or if it will be delivered. Anyway, Ms. Mangum never notified me of the motion, ergo a Response was never filed, as surely I would have if knowledgeable. So when I learned that a hearing was scheduled for January 27, 2025, I assumed it was regarding the Petition.

Now, after I was released from the Wake hoosegow, long after the hearing, and received an audio disk of the hearing, I was under the impression that the hearing was about the Petition... not a motion. I don't know if you've ever tried to transcribe, but when doing so you pay attention to the words and not their meaning. Actually, I was quite shocked when, after comments about the hearing being about the motion to dismiss, I read the first comment from the judge who said the hearing was about defendant's motion to dismiss.

Hope this provides clarification.; May 13, 2025 at 4:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Marina Lemmons.

I disagree, and will try to present it from a different angle. When Daye was brought to Duke University Hospital by ambulance, on admission he had two basic medical conditions that needed attention: (1) an acute wounding to his left flank; and (2) chronic alcoholism with acute intoxication. The trauma surgeons adequately attended to the former, however, despite awareness of his alcoholic condition, the hospital staff failed to adequately address the likelihood of his alcohol withdrawal. He was given sedatives on hospital admission, and should have been aware of his alcoholic condition.

The stab wound was not responsible for his brain-death. The esophageal intubation, which went unrecognized, was responsible. The mistake was an intervening cause because had Daye not been intubated in his esophagus, despite his alcoholic condition, he would have survived his hospitalization with a Glasgow Coma Score of fifteen.

With regards to the so-called "winner's" comment, I did not muck around in Crystal's case until after she had been abandoned by the NC Prisoner Legal Services in January 2017, and the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission and other attorneys refused to take her case.; May 13, 2025 at 5:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Off hand, I don't know. Because of time constraints I cannot devote time at the present to do so. I'm focused on trying to have Ms. Mangum freed in time to attend her youngest daughter's high school graduation.; May 13, 2025 at 5:05 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

WRONG-O. Research will show that I asked the NC State Bar to file a complaint against me for unauthorized practice (for the sake of clarification), but it refused.

Judge Clayton D. Somers interjected himself into Mangum's Petition case with his ex mero motu order to Show Cause, probably recruited by Judge Linda F. Nelson or Wake Trial Court Administrator Kellie Z. Myers. Also, in his Order he specifically requested the NC State Bar to prosecute the case.

Hope this provides much needed edification.; May 13, 2025 at 5:11 AM
Anonymous said...: "I don't know if you've ever tried to transcribe, but when doing so you pay attention to the words and not their meaning..."
Obviously, you did neither. The FIRST FULL SENTENCE YOU WROTE in your transcription were "Alright, so this is the Defendant's Motion to dismiss."; May 13, 2025 at 6:48 AM
dhall said...: You posted the NC State Bar's response to your request on one of your blog entries. You should try reading it.

From NC State Bar v. Sidney B. Harr:

"On September 12, 2024, Dr. Pascarella, through undersigned legal counsel, move to quash this (Harr's subpoena of Dr. Pascarella). Dr. Pascarella further notified the Court that Mr. Harr was under a permanent injection ...prohibiting him from providing any legal services or giving legal advice to any other person....or filing any court pleadings for or on behalf of or advising others, specifically including Crystal Mangum..."

I think it's clear to any reasonable person that Dr. Pascarella and his attorney bringing this to the Court's attention in September lead to the December order to show cause.; May 13, 2025 at 7:29 AM
dhall said...: "I did not muck around in Crystal's case until after she had been abandoned by the NC Prisoner Legal Services in January 2017.

You filed a series of motions in 2012/2013 using her name, accusing her lawyer of ineffective counsel. Due to your "mucking around", not only did at least 2 of her lawyers quit -- a Wake County judge forbade you from further involvement via permanent injunction.
It was the violation of that injunction that lead to your recent incarceration.

I think it's safe to file this (along with your "Felony Murder" nonsense) as an outright lie.; May 13, 2025 at 8:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Already responded.; May 13, 2025 at 5:06 PM
Anonymous said...: You were “shocked” after reading words that you wrote.
Obviously you don’t read your own lolsuit documents either.; May 13, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Prince Humperdinck said...: Did CGM attempt to contact the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission or were all the attempts done by you?
Everything I've read states that you tried to contact them for her.; May 14, 2025 at 7:59 AM
Marina Lemmons said...: Anonymous @2/22/25 6:05AM wrote:

"The lop-sided police investigation, based solely on a single ... victim's statements and without any input from the defendant and other likely eyewitnesses and character witnesses, was evidently all that was required by the Wake County District Attorney's Office to arrest and prosecute a ... man on such serious charges in a flimsy and incomplete case without any physical evidence or credible witnesses in its support."

I do not understand your complaint. You supported precisely this type of investigation, arrest and prosecution in the Duke lacrosse case.

Dr. Harr responded:

WRONG-O!! I never made such comments about the Duke Lacrosse case. My focus has always been on the Daye death case. He further claimed: I never had access to prosecution discovery in that case, and did not advocate regarding it.

I rate this statement as a flat out lie.

While it is true that since she was arrested in 2011, Dr. Harr’s focus has been on Ms. Mangum’s murder case and conviction and not the Duke Lacrosse case (other than to use the Duke Lacrosse case as an explanation of the state’s motivation for the charges), this blog was founded in August 2008. Dr. Harr was obviously not focused on the “Daye death case” during the first few years.

Dr. Harr was not provided prosecution discovery in the Duke Lacrosse case (that part of the statement is true). Despite not having this information, he nevertheless “advocated” regarding the case, frequently referring to Mr. Nifong as a “Minister of Justice” and criticizing the fact that Ms. Mangum never got her day in court. He frequently defended the prosecution, arguing that Ms. Mangum had not recanted the accusations (at that time). These comments clearly support Dr. Harr's view that (at least in the Duke Lacrosse case), a single victim’s statement is all that is required to support a prosecution.

These comments by Dr. Harr were made after the Attorney General dismissed the charges, provided his opinion that the defendants were innocent and that no evidence supported Ms. Mangum’s account. Our investigation shows that the eyewitness identification procedures were faulty and unreliable. No DNA confirms the accuser's story. No other witness confirms her story. Other evidence contradicts her story. She contradicts herself..; May 14, 2025 at 8:51 AM
Anonymous said...: I'd also point out that CGM wasn't aware of the motions Sid filed that dhall is referencing here.
Sid also posted attorney-client privileged information here on this blog.
"Mucking around" indeed.; May 14, 2025 at 8:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid -- for future reference, if you have access to MS Word, all you need to do is load the audio file and it will do the transcription for you. Google Docs has a similar feature, but I think you have to "play" the audio into your microphone, rather than uploading the audio file.

That should save you from any "shocking" situations like this last one.; May 14, 2025 at 12:52 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the info. Question, will it be able to differentiate between the judge, the attorney, and the witness? If not, I imagine that would be a minor inconvenience.; May 15, 2025 at 4:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

Yes, I did file a series of motions on behalf of Ms. Mangum in 2012 and 2013, but that was prior to the injunctive ruling. Fact is that her lawyers were ineffective because they allowed her to be convicted of a crime that was never committed. I can't think of anything more ineffective. Also, her lawyers quit because they wanted to do so... not because of anything I did. They just want to use me as a scapegoat.

With regards to Anony's claim that Ms. Mangum was unaware of the motions I filed is ludicrous. Upon what does he base his statement? Fact is I always confer with Ms. Mangum before filing anything... except in an emergency, such as an eminent deadline.; May 15, 2025 at 4:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Marina Lemmons.

I rate your comment as a complete misunderstanding of the issues you present. First, your reference in support of Antonio Quentel Glover being questionably accused of sexual assault differs significantly from Ms. Mangum's. Mr. Glover's accuser came forward with her accusation during an interview regarding a case of her accusations of assault by her mother. Furthermore, the alleged incident of sexual assault supposedly occurred nine years prior when she was five years old. Plus she recanted the accusation against her mother shortly after other witness testimony. In Glover's case, he was never interviewed by the State and neither were other children under his care.

As far as Ms. Mangum's recantation, keep in mind that it is not unusual for innocent people to be coerced or manipulated into believing a crime they did not commit... especially individuals with mental issues. I will confirm now that there was a period within the past several years when Ms. Mangum was in emotional turmoil that she told me she was being brain-washed to believe that she was lying about Duke Lacrosse. Some of these conversations should be on record as they were in phone calls.

For the record, I never advocated regarding the Duke Lacrosse case because, like you said, I did not have prosecution discovery to be knowledgeable. Other than to say I believe Ms. Mangum's complaint of sexual assault, I have not opined deeply on the Duke Lacrosse case.

Hope this provides much needed elucidation.; May 15, 2025 at 5:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

Ms. Mangum did try and contact NC Innocence Inquiry Commission, as did I. I mainly hand-delivered letters to the Executive Directors. Keep in mind that the NC IIC never replied directly to me, and instead mailed its responses to Ms. Mangum. I will provide links to a few of the interactive correspondence.
LINK: Correspondence with Lindsey Smith, beginning March 31, 2016.

LINK: Correspondence with Lindsey Smith, beginning November 6, 2019.; May 15, 2025 at 5:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Whatever.; May 15, 2025 at 5:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid --
"Yes, I did file a series of motions on behalf of Ms. Mangum in 2012 and 2013...." That, Sid, is the definition of "mucking around" in a court case you weren't involved in -- you weren't a defendant, you weren't a witness, and you definitely weren't CGM's lawyer.

you also stated "I did not muck around in Crystal's case until after she had been abandoned by the NC Prisoner Legal Services in January 2017".

You did NOT stipulate that this "mucking around" was prior to the injunction. In fact, this "mucking around" was the REASON for the injunction.

Mangum didn't authorize the motions you filed in 2012/2013. CGM's lawyers quit because of your (and the J4N's) actions at the time. Articles from that time support this. Google them

"Fact is I always confer with Ms. Mangum before filing anything... except in an emergency, such as an eminent deadline."

Then you DON'T always confer with CGM before filing. Thanks for confirming.; May 15, 2025 at 8:29 AM
Prince Humperdinck said...: They shouldn't have included you in their replies. You weren't the accused.
As the NCIIC pointed out, Mangum admitted to stabbing Daye -- even if she wasn't responsible for his death (she was), she would still be responsible for "lesser involvement". Her claim doesn't meet the NCIIC's requirements.

Next time, try reading the requirements BEFORE contacting the organization.; May 15, 2025 at 10:24 AM
dhall said...: Dr. Harr - on May 5th, one of the anonymous posters stated:

"You had information that could have lead to CGM's murder case being reviewed and purposely chose not to pursue it."

You didn't address this particular comment -- do you know what information Anonymous was referring to?; May 16, 2025 at 6:22 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

I do not know about what the commenter was referring. It seems that it is related to Dr. Wecht's report. However, Mangum did file a motion for appropriate relief based on Dr. Wecht's report. I don't know what else I could have done or not pursued.; May 16, 2025 at 6:29 PM
Anonymous said...: You wrote years ago (2018-2019) that Walker’s 404(b) testimony was coerced.

You could have simply convinced him to file an affidavit stating this is what happened .
If coerced testimony was admitted at trial and an individual was convicted, they can appeal the conviction based on the improper admission of the evidence.
You just sat on this and never bothered to even contact Walker.
So we can surmise that at least one of these is true:

1) You don’t really believe Walker’s testimony was coerced.
2) You believe it was coerced, but you didn’t want CGM out of prison.
3) You believe it was coerced, but you were afraid that any statement from Walker would make CGM less dependent on you.

And before you start spouting about Walker’s recanting his testimony will cause him to be subject to charges of perjury, do some research.; May 16, 2025 at 7:05 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I do believe what Mr. Walker confessed about being coerced is true. In fact, I believe this issue was included in an MAR that was filed on Ms. Mangum's behalf. I also sent a letter to the Commissioner of Prisons about assuring the phone conversations I had with Ms. Mangum was retained and not deleted. I believe I even tried to get a transcript with communications.

I'm not concerned about Mr. Walker being charged with perjury by the State... for the same reason the State will not pursue perjury charges against Dr. Nichols... it would weaken Ms. Mangum's conviction and possibly lead to her conviction being vacated.

Your premise that I want Ms. Mangum to be dependent on me is baseless, as well as being abjectly false.

As far as Ms. Mangum's wrongful imprisonment is concerned, over the past week or so, I see the enlarging light at the end of tunnel as not being an oncoming locomotive. If all goes as planned, I hope she will be in the audience for her youngest child's graduation from high school next month.

To quote Melania, "Stay tuned."; May 18, 2025 at 4:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Doesn’t matter if you believe it. Doesn’t matter if the information was included in a MAR. Doesn’t matter if the call was recorded. Doesn’t matter if you got a transcript.
What matters is some legal document (like an affidavit from Walker) stating he was coerced, signed by Walker himself.
Did you contact Walker in any way? Did you let him know you needed an actual legal document stating what he allegedly said on the call?
You had an opportunity to get proof that her conviction was based on improperly admitted evidence and you did nothing. Why is that?

“If all goes as planned, I hope…”. Of course it won’t, and of course you’ll be back here blaming someone else for your mistakes.; May 18, 2025 at 5:52 AM
dhall said...: Anonymous @ May 18, 2024 at 5:52 am - without assigning reasons for his actions, this is pretty much the discussion at the time this phone call was mentioned in this blog. Dr. Harr spent (reportedly) significant effort trying to get the alleged recording - and blaming the warden and the prison system when he couldn’t. When someone mentioned to Dr. Harr he could just ask Walker for this information? Crickets….
Dr. Harr has never spoken directly to Mr. Walker.; May 18, 2025 at 4:42 PM
dhall said...: I just noticed you took down your transcription.
Why? Why didn't you just rename it? Now anyone who happens to stumble across these blog comments have no frame of reference for them.
Or was that your intent?; May 19, 2025 at 7:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

Don't understand. I never intentionally removed the transcript of Judge Nelson's Motion to Dismiss Mangum's Petition for Judicial Review. It should still be present, as once posted or uploaded, I don't remove or delete. Will click on the button and try to see what's going on.; May 19, 2025 at 6:17 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

No, I did not attempt to contact Mr. Walker because I don't think his statements would be taken seriously by the Durham D.A. I don't know Mr. Walker and feel he was taken advantage of by the prosecution in Mangum's case. I concluded the downside would far outweigh any positives in attempting to communicate with Mr. Walker. That's the bottom line.; May 19, 2025 at 6:23 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I have proof that Dr. Nichols committed material perjury in Mangum's case, but the DOJ and Durham D.A. won't do anything about it. Right? It's as likely as Attorney General Pam Bondi indicting President Trump for his criminal mob-like actions. An affidavit from Mr. Walker is not going to move the needle in Mangum's case... end of story.; May 19, 2025 at 6:30 PM
dhall said...: "...I don't think...". At least that part is correct.
Walker's recanted testimony would have at least empowered an appeal for Crystal Mangum.
But you, by yourself, with no legal training and no research, concluded that the downside would outweigh any positives (I think you mean that the negatives outweigh any positives, but whatever), in contacting Mr. Walker to ask for this testimony.
Perhaps Crystal Mangum will read this someday, and see for herself the poor decisions you have made.; May 20, 2025 at 5:56 AM
dhall said...: My apologies, Dr. Harr -- it was apparently an issue with my iPad that lead me to write my comment from May 19, 2025 at 7:46 AM.

This morning from my computer, your blog is working fine, and there's nothing missing.; May 20, 2025 at 5:59 AM
Anonymous said...: "I have proof that Dr. Nichols committed material perjury in Mangum's case". No, you don't. You have your OPINION that he did, and you have Wecht's OPINION that the cause of death was something other than CGM stabbing Daye. The rest is just poor assumption on your part.
You've told us numerous times, that it's not perjury if you believe it is true at the time. Were you lying when you told us this?; May 20, 2025 at 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: I would note that "perjury" is the act of intentionally lying under oath.; May 20, 2025 at 8:56 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

No prob. I've had problems with my computers many times in the past... as have probably many others.; May 20, 2025 at 6:12 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous
"I have proof that Dr. Nichols committed material perjury in Mangum's case". No, you don't. You have your OPINION that he did, and you have Wecht's OPINION that the cause of death was something other than CGM stabbing Daye. The rest is just poor assumption on your part.
You've told us numerous times, that it's not perjury if you believe it is true at the time. Were you lying when you told us this?
May 20, 2025 at 8:54 AM

Hey, Anony.

Is it your contention that Dr. Nichols actually believed when testifying that Daye's spleen had been removed eleven days earlier during surgery and was not available for examination at autopsy? If that was the case, why did he describe the spleen in his autopsy report. Further, the onus was on Daye to photographically document his findings or pertinent non-findings. The Nichols autopsy was a total disaster that lacked any credibility.; May 20, 2025 at 6:18 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous
I would note that "perjury" is the act of intentionally lying under oath.
May 20, 2025 at 8:56 AM

Hey, Anony.

It is my belief that Dr. Nichols intentionally produced a fraudulent autopsy report and that he intentionally gave materially perjured testimony at Mangum's trial for the purpose of having her convicted of murder in Daye's death.; May 20, 2025 at 6:21 PM
Anonymous said...: “ It is my belief…”
Your belief isn’t proof.; May 21, 2025 at 4:34 AM
Anonymous said...: No movement on Harr et al v. Deberry.
FWIW, I think there'll be a ruling on the motion to dismiss first, and if the ruling is in favor of dismissal, Sid's motion for summary judgment is moot.; May 21, 2025 at 10:51 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Allow me to inject some edification. Facts prove that Dr. Nichols produced an inaccurate autopsy report. Facts prove that Dr. Nichols gave false testimony at trial. My belief/opinion is that he intentionally drafted a fraudulent autopsy report. My belief/opinion is that he intentionally gave perjured testimony at trial.

Hope this provides sufficient elucidation on the matter.; May 21, 2025 at 5:57 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the update. As you know, since I try to keep my distance from the Federal Courthouse, I only learn about the case when I receive documents in the mail.

What are the chances Judge Flanagan will have a hearing on Deberry's Motion to Dismiss? Nil to none... right? The decision by Judge Houston to hold a hearing on Mangum's Petition for Judicial Review was for optics only. And to assure I would not throw cold water on their bogus event, Judge Somers threw me in the hoosegow. Right?; May 21, 2025 at 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: "The decision by Judge Houston to hold a hearing on Mangum's Petition for Judicial Review was for optics only."

Since there never WAS a hearing on Mangum's Petition for Judicial Review", it could NOT have been for "optics only".
WRT a motion to dismiss, The court may hold a hearing where both sides present arguments and evidence related to the motion.

"Throw water on their bogus event". What? Motion to dismiss hearings are legitimate. Anyone calling them bogus just doesn't understand the law. What "water" could you possibly have thrown? As dhall pointed out, for the purpose of this hearing, the court assumes EVERY CLAIM in CGM's petition is true.
Finally, you were thrown in jail because you were found guilty of unauthorized practice of law. You'd previously been found guilty of the exact same thing and were told this could happen if you did this again.
FAFO, Sid.
You F'd around, you found out.; May 22, 2025 at 5:52 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

How often do you believe judges will hold hearings on motions to dismiss when the plaintiff is pro se? Practically never... the court just dismisses the lawsuit.

What I find objectionable about Judge Houston's hearing on Nelson's Motion to Dismiss is the fact that Nelson, in her final decision, specifically stated that Ms. Mangum had the right to appeal with a Petition for Judicial Review. So the first motion Nelson files, surreptitiously, is a single-page motion to dismiss with a copy supposedly sent to the prison where Crystal may or may not have received it. The fact is that I was never aware of it, otherwise I would have made sure that Ms. Mangum filed an Objection to the Motion.; May 23, 2025 at 5:12 AM
Anonymous said...: "How often do you believe judges will hold hearings on motions to dismiss when the plaintiff is pro se? "
In North Carolina, a court hearing for a motion to dismiss with both sides present is common but not always required. You want more information regarding how often, ask the court, not me.

"So the first motion Nelson files, surreptitiously, is a single-page motion to dismiss".
Filing a motion requires a written request to the court, so you can't file a motion "surreptitiously". In North Carolina, the defendant is not responsible for an incarcerated individual receiving a motion to dismiss.

"The fact is that I was never aware of it".
You weren't a petitioner.

"otherwise I would have made sure that Ms. Mangum filed an Objection to the Motion."
Actions like this is why you ended up in jail.; May 23, 2025 at 11:19 AM
Prince Humperdinck said...: "How often do you believe judges will hold hearings on motions to dismiss when the plaintiff is pro se? Practically never..."

Just because judges dismiss YOUR pro se lolsuits without a hearing doesn't mean ALL pro se lawsuits are dismissed without a hearing on a motion to dismiss.; May 23, 2025 at 3:04 PM
dhall said...: I don't think you ever posted Crystal Mangum's original petition for Judicial Review -- So there's really no way (other than your comments here) for us to actually know what the petition attempted to do.
We can only assume that Judge Nelson's reason for the motion to dismiss are true -- she was acting in her role as a judge (thus judicial/sovereign immunity).
My bet is that Mangum's petition also didn't meet the purpose of such as petition -- that is, providing evidence that the that decisions from the original lawsuit were not legally sound and did not comply with the law.
I'm also betting that it didn't specify any legal principles from Judge Nelson's original decision that backed up her argument that Judge Nelson's decision did not comply with the law.

It's kind of hard to keep track of the lawsuits. This blog entry was about Harr et al v. Deberry and your motion for summary judgment, but a great deal of the discussion was about Mangum's petition for judicial review. Mangum's petition for judicial review was denied due to the outcome of the last hearing, correct?

BTW, DA Deberry filed a response in opposition to your motion for Summary Judgment.; May 24, 2025 at 9:11 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Regarding Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, the Petitioner, even though incarcerated, is supposed to receive a copy of the motion. Yes, Nelson did send a copy, per her Certificate of Service, to Ms. Mangum, but in prison there is no assurance that she timely received it.

I use the adverb surreptitiously to imply that the essentially single-page motion was sent only to Ms. Mangum... which is all that was legally required, but Nelson and her counsel were aware that I was the one who acted on Ms. Mangum's legal issues. Unfortunately, Ms. Mangum, in large measure due to circumstances of her lengthy incarceration, takes an almost cavalier attitude when it comes to legal mail, which can be problematic.

As regards ending up in jail, the purpose of Judge Somers' 30-day sentence was to assure I would not be available to give testimony at Ms. Mangum's hearing before Judge Houston. Judge Somers was not assigned to Mangum's case, and his involvement interfered with fairness of Mangum in the hearing. If anyone should have had the right to issue a Show Cause Hearing, it should have been Judge Houston. Judge Somers was most likely recruited by Judge Nelson or the Wake Trial Court Administrator.; May 25, 2025 at 4:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

True, that is evidenced by the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss by Judge Houston. I believe there are two reasons he held a hearing on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. (1) By holding a hearing where both sides are allowed to present their arguments, it provides the feeling of fairness and consideration of the facts of the case; and (2) By holding a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, the judge avoids having to rule on the substantive issues and merits of the case... i.e., the review of Nelson's Final Decision.

Ergo, by holding a hearing on the motion to dismiss, Judge Houston gives the illusion of addressing the Petition in a serious, good-faith manner, while at the same time avoiding the issues regarding Nelson's Final Decision.; May 25, 2025 at 4:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

Thanks for letting me know about Deberry filing a Response. I haven't received anything in the mail, so I will await getting it.

I cannot post all legal actions due to constraints of effort and time, so I only post those I feel are most relevant... time permitting. Presently I am trying to get Ms. Mangum released so she can attend her daughter's high school graduation in early June.

With regards to Nelson's Final Decision, I interpret her main argument as being Ms. Mangum lacked an expert witness, and therefore her petition should be dismissed. Mangum would counter that as being false by stating she had the expert legal counsel of Dr. Cyril Wecht, and that Judge Nelson, waited until after he died at the age of 93 that she scheduled a hearing. Then, when Ms. Mangum tried to subpoena Dr. Luigi Pascarella and Dr. Sabino Zani as expert witness, Nelson struck the witness list and avoided a hearing by granting a Motion to Dismiss.

Fact is that the surgeons who operated on Reginald Daye are best positioned to determine whether or not he had any complications secondary to the stab wound. If the State felt strongly that Dr. Clay Nichols' autopsy report's conclusion was correct, it should have been eager to have the physicians testify. Instead, Mangum is the one who sought testimony from them.

Can you provide a reason why the State did not want Drs. Pascarella and Zani to testify or provide affidavits about Daye's postoperative hospital course or death?; May 25, 2025 at 5:08 AM
Anonymous said...: You interpret incorrectly.
Fact is Mangum allowed someone with no legal background and who was enjoined by the state of North Carolina from practicing law to do her legal work.
Fact is because she let you do all this, all your filings were thrown out.
Fact is that wouldn’t have happened had Mangum actually done the work herself.
Fact is she’s finding out what happens when you F around.
And fact is there is nothing YOU can do to get CGM out of jail by early June.; May 25, 2025 at 5:36 AM
dhall said...: Dr. Harr -- we both know that Crystal Mangum never had the "legal counsel" of Dr. Wecht. Dr. Wecht wasn't licensed to practice law in North Carolina at the time, and would have recognized that any "legal counsel" he provided would be considered unauthorized practice of law.
His opinion and his affidavit are not legal counsel.

Now, we all know that Crystal Mangum didn't prepare any of the documents for the OAH case -- you did. I doubt Crystal Mangum even read them. As you are not a lawyer and were not a petitioner (you were rightly removed as a petitioner) those documents should have been thrown out. Just as any legal documents I prepared and submitted for that case should be thrown out.

Finally (and I can't stress this enough), all of these lawsuits have simply been a poor attempt to retry Crystal Mangum's criminal trial in a civil setting.

Despite being told multiple times that a civil win does not have any legal impact on a criminal conviction, you continued to take this path. Nothing

WRT Drs. Pascarelli and Zani, you have the documentation and can read it yourself. Neither of them were involved in the decisions that lead to your filing these civil suits.

There simply is nothing wrong with the the decisions made in the OAH case. Crystal Mangum (meaning of course, you) didn't follow correct procedure, and Judge Nelson's original decision outlines that, as well as identifying the legal precedents why this decision was made.

Again, since you refuse to post the original petition for judicial review, I am left with no proof, but I can make several educated guesses based on your other filings:
Rather than arguing that the legal precedents used to come to her conclusions did not apply or were interpreted incorrectly, you chose (yet again) to attack Judge Nelson by claiming she was a part of a grand conspiracy.
You did not provide any legal precedents to support your argument.
The rules you did manage to supply were cherry-picked to remove any phrases that did not support your argument.
You simply presented the same documentation used for all the other civil lawsuits you've tried to file on Crystal Mangum's behalf.

I can see why commenters here have started referring to these as "lolsuits". borrowing your phrasing, Fact is you are not a lawyer, you don't understand legal process, and you refuse to do any research.
Fact is those are your failings, not the failings of the judicial system.; May 26, 2025 at 7:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Allow me to restate my interpretations.
Fact is Mangum was abandoned by NC Prisoner Legal Services in January 2017, and subsequently she has had no post-conviction legal representation.
Fact is, as Mangum stated at the Motion to Dismiss hearing, she has not had attorney representation for the past eight years... despite extreme efforts to retain counsel.
Fact is that cases I filed on behalf of myself and Mangum were dismissed based on politics and not merit.
Fact is that Mangum would not have physically or logistically been able to file complaints and motions because she was incarcerated without access to keyboard, printer, paper, addresses, etc.... she needed assistance!
Fact is that if I had not done anything on behalf of Mangum, she would still be incarcerated, but without any hope of early release and exoneration.
Fact is that it IS possible for me to get Mangum freed in time for her to attend the high school graduation of her youngest daughter in early June.

Hope this provides much needed edification.; May 27, 2025 at 4:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

We can stipulate that Dr. Cyril H. Wecht never legally represented Ms. Mangum. He was an expert witness for her.

In her April 10, 2023 letter to ME, Dr. Aurelius told ME that I could appeal her decision by timely filing with the NC Office of Administrative Hearings. Then when I present merits of the case, Dr. Aurelius and her DOJ counsel move to dismiss ME as a petitioner... despite putting in writing that I had the right to appeal to NC OAH. I should never have been dismissed.

You can say whenever an attempt is made to appeal a jury verdict that one is attempting to "re-try" a trial. However, even when complaints are filed in civil court, their outcomes can have the possibility of providing basis for challenging a criminal conviction.

Regarding Dr. Zani and Dr. Pascarella, Ms. Mangum and I did not actively seek them out until after the death of our expert witness Dr. Cyril Wecht on May 13, 2024. Actually, the surgeons who treated Reginald Daye are in the best position to determine whether or not he had any complications secondary to the stab wound he sustained.

The decisions made by NC OAH Judge Nelson were made to delay proceedings and deny Ms. Mangum access to expert witnesses. For example, she delayed scheduling a hearing until after Dr. Wecht passed away. Then, when Mangum tried to get Dr. Pascarella and Dr. Zani to testify as expert witnesses, the courts obstructed her attempts to serve subpoenas. Finally, instead of the Office of Administrative Hearings actually holding a hearing, Judge Nelson grants the State's Motion to Dismiss.

I do not refuse to post Ms. Mangum's Petition for Judicial Review... it is just that I do not have time to do so. Keep in mind that I am focused on freeing Ms. Mangum in time to attend her daughter's high school graduation. In fact, I really am taking precious time in responding to your comment... and I do so because I believe comments by you, and Marina Lemmons, and others are worthy of addressing. (Comments by kenhyderal are not adversarial to my positions and require no responses.)

I will follow this comment with one about which I would ask you, Marina Lemmons, and others to consider and respond.; May 27, 2025 at 5:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ISSUE TO WHICH I ASK FOR A RESPONSE!!

As you know, on or about September 11, 2024, Respondent Judge Linda Nelson's DOJ counsel filed an essentially one-page Motion to Dismiss pro se Petitioner Ms. Mangum's Petition for Judicial Review filed with the Wake County Superior Court. After more than thirty or sixty days of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, there was no response by Petitioner Ms. Mangum. Failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, enabled the presiding judge to summarily dismiss Ms. Mangum's Petition for Judicial Review.

(1) Why was Mangum's Petition for Judicial Review not automatically dismissed?

Three and a half months later, on December 31, 2024, Wake County Superior Court Judge Matthew Houston gave notice for a January 27, 2025 hearing on Nelson's Motion to Dismiss.

(2) Why did Judge Houston decide to hold a hearing on the motion to dismiss when Petitioner did not respond to Respond to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss?

Though Judge Houston was assigned to Ms. Mangum's Petition case, Judge Clayton D. Somers intervened with his Show Cause Motion to me filed on December 11, 2024... long before Judge Houston's Assignment and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum was filed on December 30, 2024.

(3) When was a judge assigned to Mangum's Petition for Judicial Review case after its August 8, 2024 filing?

(4) How did Judge Somers get involved in Mangum's case?

It is my contention that Somers' interference in Mangum's case, to which he was not assigned, disrupted Judge Houston's case and was judicially inappropriate.

As you were.; May 27, 2025 at 6:02 AM
dhall said...: No one here that I'm aware of works with the North Carolina courts -- and we don't have access (other that what you've posted on this blog) to any documents regarding Mangum's petition. Why would you expect us to be able to accurately answer these questions?
I'll offer some guesses (actually, let's call them "opinions").

1) The court was notified that Mangum never received the Motion to dismiss, and rather than trust the prison mail system, they held a hearing where Mangum could actually respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

2) See # 1.

3) Some time between August 8 and December 31.

4). Judge Somers wasn't involved in Mangum's case. he was YOUR judge for a Show Cause motion filed against YOU by the NC State Bar. Mangum's petition was mentioned in the Show Cause motion filed by the NC State Bar only in reference to you violating the 2013 injunction. Judge Somers didn't file the order to show cause.

It is my contention that Judge Somers didn't interfere with Mangum's case, and you don't understand the law or legal processes enough to make an intelligent decision about what is or isn't judicially appropriate.
You're just looking for someone else to blame your mistakes on.; May 27, 2025 at 1:03 PM
dhall said...: "We can stipulate that Dr. Cyril H. Wecht never legally represented Ms. Mangum..."
You're the one that stated Mangum "had the expert legal counsel of Dr. Cyril Wecht". Rather than "stipulate", admit your mistake and move on.

"In her...letter to ME, Dr. Aurelius told ME that I could appeal her decision by timely filing with the NC Office of Administrative Hearings."
It doesn't matter who she responded to -- what matters is that you tried to claim Dr. Aurelius violated your civil rights, when she didn't. You didn't meet the criteria of a "person aggrieved" for the type of lawsuit you/Crystal Mangum filed.

"You can say whenever an attempt is made to appeal a jury verdict that one is attempting to "re-try" a trial.."
You can say that -- but you'd be wrong. An appeal is a review of the lower court's proceedings to ensure that no errors occurred during the trial that impacted the outcome. The focus is SOLELY on legal error. It is definitely not a retrial.

"Regarding Dr. Zani and Dr. Pascarella..."
Neither Dr. Zani or Pascarella should be subpoenaed for these types of civil cases. Neither can prove or disprove that someone else violated Mangum's civil rights.

"The decisions made by NC OAH Judge Nelson were made to delay proceedings..."
Mangum's NCOAH lawsuit was delayed because someone thought that it was a good idea to submit a MAR, and Judge Nelson made the determination that, if the MAR ruling came in Mangum's favor, it would render the NCOAH lawsuit moot. You don't like, it? Blame the person who filed the MAR.
" Finally, instead of the Office of Administrative Hearings actually holding a hearing, Judge Nelson grants the State's Motion to Dismiss."

What part of "The court may hold a hearing where both sides present arguments and evidence related to the motion" do you not understand?; May 27, 2025 at 2:01 PM
A Durham Man said...: Sid,

When was the last time kenhyderal published a comment?; May 27, 2025 at 5:54 PM
Anonymous said...: On March 19, kenhyderal informed us that he was leaving the blog based on the advice of his lawyer. I do not believe that he has posted since making that announcement.; May 28, 2025 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Fact is even though CGM had no post-conviction legal representation, she still allowed someone with no legal background and who was enjoined by the state of North Carolina from practicing law to do her legal work.

Fact is that cases you filed on behalf of yourself and Mangum were dismissed because you don't know the law and don't bother to do any research.

Fact is inmates in North Carolina are provided with paper, carbon paper, and writing implements. Inmates also have access to notary services. Inmates can request photocopies of laws from the UNC Law Library.

Fact is that regardless of your efforts, CGM is still incarcerated without any hope of early release and exoneration.

Fact is there is nothing you can do to get CGM freed in time for her to attend the high school graduation.

Hope this provides much needed edification.; May 28, 2025 at 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...: "I'm focused on trying to have Ms. Mangum freed in time to attend her youngest daughter's high school graduation."

I know inmates can be released from jail to attend certain events (funerals, weddings), but I don't think a graduation ceremony is considered a "significant" event.
Who knows? With CGM's upcoming release in 7 months, this may be considered "under special circumstances"
We'll see, but while she may be "released" to attend this event, she won't be "freed" -- she'll have to serve the remainder of her sentence.; May 30, 2025 at 7:16 AM
Anonymous said...: FWIW, I consider a child's graduation a significant event. I hope CGM does get the opportunity to attend.; May 30, 2025 at 7:18 AM
dhall said...: Motions for summary judgment are supposed to seek the same (or a subset of the) relief requested in the original complaint.

I did a quick comparison of both the Harr et al v. Deberry original complaint and the motion for summary judgment (the one's you've posted on this blog, anyway).
Shockingly, the relief requested in the motion for summary judgment (to grant Harr's motion to compel Deberry to meet with Harr and allow him to present evidence of Mangum's innocence) doesn't appear in the original complaint.

I have to ask -- How could you miss something this simple?; May 30, 2025 at 12:13 PM
Kenhyderal Lay Advocate said...: Keep in mind that Kenhyderal is focused on freeing Ms. Mangum in time to attend her daughter's high school graduation. He does not want to take precious time responding to comments.; May 31, 2025 at 6:24 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Guess temporary release would be better than nothing... as long as she's not accompanied by guards at the event. As noted, my telos is to have her freed by exoneration prior to her daughter's high school graduation. It is a tall order because the State has imposed a "run-out-the-clock" strategy.

The graduation is scheduled for Wednesday, June 11th in the afternoon.; June 3, 2025 at 4:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the good wishes.; June 3, 2025 at 4:26 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

True... the relief requested is not word-for-word identical. Bottom line is a meeting with Ms. Deberry. Whereas I initially requested a more formal forum, the Motion for Summary Judgment was far more informal. The purpose being essentially the same, i.e., to afford the opportunity for me to present to Ms. Deberry evidence of Ms. Mangum's innocence.; June 3, 2025 at 4:37 AM
dhall said...: When you make a motion for summary judgment you're asking the judge to decide the case in their favor without a full trial.

Your original lawsuit doesn't ask for you to "to present to Ms. Deberry evidence of Ms. Mangum's innocence." as a requested relief. It asks for you to be present at a hearing to address Mangum's conviction. At no point does the requested relief even mention your "evidence".

When you ask for relief other than that requested in the original complaint. the judge CAN'T in your favor, because the motion for summary judgment if granted, is supposed to settle the case. In this situation a decision granting this motion wouldn't meet the original requested relief.; June 3, 2025 at 8:16 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

Yesterday, Wednesday, June 11, 2025, was a sad and regrettable day because Crystal Mangum's youngest daughter graduated from high school without her mother in the audience. I consider it to be one of my biggest failures with the maligned and racist State scoring a trifecta of preventing Ms. Mangum from attending the high school graduation of any of her three children. To say I am disheartened would be an understatement... but, nonetheless, am even more determined.

As you were.; June 12, 2025 at 3:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Of course, CGM couldn't attend the graduation. Of course, you're back here blaming someone else for your mistakes. SSDD.

I'll agree with you that the state of NC is maligned, though. You malign it often enough here.; June 12, 2025 at 5:34 AM
dhall said...: Nothing Dr. Harr has done to date would have Crystal Mangum freed by exoneration. Civil suits do not have any legal impact on a criminal conviction.
Motions (like an MAR) only work when the person filing them:
a) Has completed the appropriate research
b) Knows how to actually write the motion and include only relevant data
c) Is either the defendant or the defendant's attorney.

Dr. Harr fails on all of these, and when he does, he has the audacity to blame others for his own failings.

It is unfortunate that NC doesn't recognize a child's graduation as a significant event. It's even more unfortunate that somehow Dr. Harr has convinced Crystal Mangum that only he can help her.; June 12, 2025 at 12:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Stop whining and go hire an attorney who knows what he or she is doing. One thing that is clear from the lawsuits you have filed is that you are inept and are seeking attention.; June 13, 2025 at 2:47 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the grammatical correction. I should have used the adjective "malignant" instead of maligned.

I merely lay blame where blame is due. I am not responsible for Ms. Mangum's wrongful incarceration. Her wrongful incarceration is what caused her to miss her daughter's graduation.; June 14, 2025 at 5:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

Problem with the recently filed MARs is that senior resident Superior Court Judge O'Foghludha refused to follow rules and assign the case to another superior court judge.

I am the only one who has been actively trying to help Ms. Mangum. I've tried to recruit others to help, including hiring attorneys. Keep in mind that Ms. Mangum's trumped up conviction was not about justice... rather it was about retaliation.; June 14, 2025 at 5:55 AM
THE GREAT KILGO said...: THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS.; June 14, 2025 at 6:16 AM
dhall said...: As has been explained to you, it is well within Superior Court Judge O'Foghludha's purview to handle cases as he sees fit. You refuse to accept this. That is your fault, not the fault of Judge O'Foghludha.

Your attempt sot "recruit others to help" all ask for you or Crystal Mangum (or both) to be a member of the legal team. Any lawyer would decline, because neither of you are lawyers.
Even if you were lawyers, if you represent yourself, you have a fool for a client (H/T Mark Twain).

And you keep in mind that you involving yourself in this case cost Mangum at least 2 lawyers and resulted in multiple meaningless lawsuits that did absolutely NOTHING to assist her. It can be argued your so-called "advocacy" has only hurt her.; June 14, 2025 at 11:26 AM
dhall said...: You're welcome. it's unfortunate that Dr. Harr doesn't realize how obvious this is.; June 15, 2025 at 9:50 AM
Anonymous said...: The problem is you refuse to listen and learn and keep misstating the law. It has been repeatedly explained to you and shown to you that the Senior Resident can assign MARs to themselves. That’s why Judge Hudson was able to rule on so many in Durham, and other local Senior Resident Judges have ruled on them.

You refuse to learn (like on felony murder) which is why most think you do all this to lead Crystal on, if you really wanted to help her you’d at least try to learn.; June 16, 2025 at 5:07 PM

Post a Comment

Sunday, May 4, 2025

Sidney Harr and Crystal Mangum v. Durham D.A. Satana Deberry: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

125 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me