Wednesday, October 29, 2025

Plaintiffs Pro Se Motion to Compel Delivery of Legal Mail to Inmate Crystal Mangum

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

27 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous
Really? Your comment prior to mine was referencing Mangum v. Deberry. Let me refresh your memory:
".... If you'll remember, when in Mangum v. Deberry when she wrote a letter to the clerk requesting subpoenas, the U.S. District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan construed the letter as a motion and denied it, for reasons I am unable to understand..."

It's literally RIGHT THERE in the order from Judge Flanagan. The motion for issuance of subpoenas was denied because the decision on the motion to dismiss was pending.

Now, why don’t you address the post from Anonymous @ October 16, 2025 at 10:50 AM, and followed up by Prince Humperdinck on October 18?

They explain (PH in detail) why the motion to compel assignment of legal counsel will fail.

Of course, the lolsuit itself will fail because the NC IIC can't grant the relief being sought -- and you provide NO legal foundation for the request. FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) .
October 23, 2025 at 11:27 AM


Hey, Anony.

First of all, the letter from Ms. Mangum was a letter and not a motion... it was in a letter format, not a formal motion format... there was no Certificate of Service... and the letter was mailed and not filed in the clerk's office. So, it should not be ruled upon. All Mangum did was what the clerk of the court told me it was necessary in order to have the subpoena issued. The clerk of court did not tell me to have Mangum file a motion in order to receive subpoenas.

October 29, 2025 at 6:11 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous
Really? Your comment prior to mine was referencing Mangum v. Deberry. Let me refresh your memory:
".... If you'll remember, when in Mangum v. Deberry when she wrote a letter to the clerk requesting subpoenas, the U.S. District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan construed the letter as a motion and denied it, for reasons I am unable to understand..."

It's literally RIGHT THERE in the order from Judge Flanagan. The motion for issuance of subpoenas was denied because the decision on the motion to dismiss was pending.

Now, why don’t you address the post from Anonymous @ October 16, 2025 at 10:50 AM, and followed up by Prince Humperdinck on October 18?

They explain (PH in detail) why the motion to compel assignment of legal counsel will fail.

Of course, the lolsuit itself will fail because the NC IIC can't grant the relief being sought -- and you provide NO legal foundation for the request. FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) .
October 23, 2025 at 11:27 AM


Hey, Anony.

First of all, the letter from Ms. Mangum was a letter and not a motion... it was in a letter format, not a formal motion format... there was no Certificate of Service... and the letter was mailed and not filed in the clerk's office. So, it should not be ruled upon. All Mangum did was what the clerk of the court told me it was necessary in order to have the subpoena issued. The clerk of court did not tell me to have Mangum file a motion in order to receive subpoenas.

October 29, 2025 at 6:11 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous
"With any luck, Ms. Mangum will finally be able to spend Thanksgiving and Christmas with her family."
Not in 2025, pal. That's not a prediction -- it's a spoiler.
October 24, 2025 at 6:11 AM


Hey, Anony.

As I always say, when truth and justice is on your side, there is always hope. I am hoping that truth and justice will prevail before the holidays.

October 29, 2025 at 6:14 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous
As much as I would like to say that Sid has taken the comments here seriously and is busy researching his errors in his recent lolsuit (trust me, it’s his, not CGM’s. I doubt she’s even read the filings), we all know that isn’t true.

He still hasn’t responded to the anonymous and Prince Humperdinck comments regarding the silly motion to assign CGM a lawyer, nor has he responded to my comments about why the lolsuit will fail.
October 26, 2025 at 11:39 AM


Hey, Anony.

It is true that Ms. Mangum has not read the Complaint... that is because the prison will not allow her access to the hardcopy. Because legal mail must be sent from a lawyer's office, Ms. Mangum is at great disadvantage in not being able to retain an attorney. The motion was filed to rectify the injustice so she can read copies of documents filed on her behalf.

October 29, 2025 at 6:21 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous
In the most recent motion, Sid mentions “senseless humiliation heaped upon him” by the NC Legislative Black Caucus in 2019. I looked through the 2019 blog entries and couldn’t find anything about this. Does anyone have any details?
October 26, 2025 at 12:16 PM


Hey, Anony.

I was treated terribly by the NC Legislative Black Caucus. I was strictly limited to five minutes to give my presentation, a secretary holding a stopwatch. The only question was about Ronnie Long... nothing regarding Crystal Mangum. The meeting was before the Caucus was held the last week of June 2019, and the following Monday of July 1, 2019, I called and retained Dr. Cyril Wecht. Prior to the Caucus meeting I filled out a form for the NAACP requesting a discrimination investigation, and never received a reply. These two events made it apparent that the importance of the messenger was more important than the message in this case.

I believe I may have covered it in my blog site... it would have been most likely in July 2019.

October 29, 2025 at 6:32 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Prince Humperdinck
Sid again is trying his “felony murder” argument - this time on his Substack.
In the spirit of full transparency, why didn’t you add the statements from this blog that explain in detail why felony murder charges were never in play?

He also doesn’t mention my argument about why CGM isn’t getting court-appointed attorneys to help her with “her” MAR.
Sid also admits that CGM “…is severely handicapped in having a full understanding of her own complaint, motions, and other documents…”, proving that she isn’t creating them.
On a side note, he continues to put scare quotes around the word innocent when referring to the Duke LAX three, conveniently ignoring CGM’s own words that she “…testified falsely against them by saying that they raped me when they didn’t”.
October 26, 2025 at 1:35 PM


Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

Can you provide me with elucidation as to why the baseless larceny of chose in action indictment was filed? There is no other reason rather than to use the felony-murder rule to justify seeking a first-degree murder conviction. The state's vindictive prosecution had the goal of giving Ms. Mangum a life-sentence.

As is explained in the most recent lawsuit, Crystal Mangum has no keyboard, printer, paper, or means to file a lawsuit... so, as a co-plaintiff, I must draft the complaint and motions which are based on our conversations during visitation. The only way she can see a draft of the documents is by the hardcopies being sent in the mail to her. So, although she has an understanding of what's in the documents, she has not seen them. I'm trying to rectify this problem by the filing of this instant motion.

October 29, 2025 at 6:48 PM
Anonymous said...

You simply do not bother to do any research, do you? A letter to a judge from someone acting pro se will be construed as a legal argument. The judge has 2 options.
Option 1- ignore it (by either placing it in the court file with no other action taken or returning it).
Option 2- accept it and treat it as a motion.

October 29, 2025 at 6:50 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous
Sid's at it again - this time filing a motion to compel delivery of Inmate Legal mail.
The thing is, CGM gets her mail -- but it is converted to a file and delivered via tablet....It's a policy NC implemented due to the number of drugs being sent to inmates. Apparently, people were soaking the letters in drugs, and the inmates could smoke (or eat, I guess) them.
I think his argument is that his mail is "legal mail" and should be delivered like a letter from a lawyer/law firm -- simply because he writes "Legal Mail" on the envelope.
Sid -- if that's all it takes ANYONE could send an inmate a letter with the words "Legal Mail" written on it and it would bypass the delivery via tablet process. Hell, they could write a letter soaked in drugs, put YOUR name/address and the words "Legal Mail" on the envelope, and send it to any inmate.
You're asking for CGM to get preferential treatment.
October 29, 2025 at 7:34 AM


Hey, Anony.

I think most of the issues you bring up are answered in the motion that was filed on Monday. Surely you believe that Ms. Mangum should have access to the complaint and motions I filed on her and my behalf. The instant motion is trying to rectify this inequity.

October 29, 2025 at 6:54 PM
Anonymous said...

I believe that CGM should be treated as any other N.C. inmate. What you’re asking for is for her to be allowed something not allowed to any other inmate.

Ask your good friend Shan Carter if he gets “legal mail” from non-lawyers. Ask him how he manages filing motions and complaints on his behalf.

October 29, 2025 at 7:11 PM
Anonymous said...

You keep failing to respond to Prince Humperdinck’s original post. Here’s what he stated:
“ Constitutional rights to a state--appointed attorney apply to the felony…trial and the appeals -- as the appeals are considered a continuation of the initial criminal case.
A MAR is not a continuation of the criminal case. a MAR is a separate proceeding -- an attack on a conviction or sentence.”

What is your proof that Constitutional rights to a state--appointed attorney apply to MORE THAN the felony trial and the appeals? It isn’t listed in your lawsuit or any motion.

What legal precedent shows that a MAR IS a continuation of the criminal case and NOT a separate proceeding? This legal precedent is not identified in your lawsuit or any motion.

By all means, enlighten us.

October 29, 2025 at 7:26 PM
Prince Humperdinck said...

Can you provide me with elucidation as to why the baseless larceny of chose in action indictment was filed?
I'm not wasting my time -- it's been explained to you multiple times over the years. Commenters here attempted to provide elucidation, and you chose not to accept it. That's your fault, not mine.

The felony-murder rule was never in play for the CGM trial. You know this and still push this silly argument. Again, your fault, not mine.

CGM is no more entitled to hard copies of mail sent from a person not a lawyer than any other inmate is entitled to hard copies of mail sent from a person not a lawyer -- Even if the envelope states "Legal Mail" on it.
You don't like it? Change the NC DAC policy -- don't file a motion in an unrelated civil lawsuit.
Finally, stating that CGM has no "paper, or means to file a lawsuit.." is a falsehood. She can still write them, like she wrote the letter to the clerk in the Mangum v. Deberry lolsuit.

October 30, 2025 at 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...

I see you sent the court a letter. Are you expecting them to act on that letter like they did with Mangum's letter? I told you they had 2 options.
I haven't seen the contents of that letter, but I'm betting they go with the "ignore" option...

October 31, 2025 at 6:27 AM
Anonymous said...

Well, at least Sid took the time to post these comments. Maybe he’ll get around to responding to them…

November 1, 2025 at 1:12 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

It's your position that after conviction and a denial of a Direct Appeal, an inmate has no guarantee to further legal counsel unless he/she can pay for an attorney. Am I right?

I disagree because the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission, a State agency, and the NC Prisoner Legal Services, a non-profit law firm contracted with the state, are suppose to fill the vacuum and file post-conviction motions, such as MARs.

The NC IIC refused to consider Mangum's case, most likely as a quid pro quo because of the $50,000 donation that came from the Duke Lacrosse students' settlement with the city of Durham in which it was seeking $10 million each.

The NC PLS was defiant in its objections to communicating with me. It did not want to have anything to do with me, so I could not direct attention to the medical issues. Obviously, the NC PLS did not want to help Ms. Mangum... it was just going through the motions. (No pun intended.)

November 1, 2025 at 1:45 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

Yes, I did send the case manager a letter seeking to have the process run at a reasonably fast rate because of my belief that resolution of the lawsuit would result in Ms. Mangum's release from custody and I wanted her to be freed in time to spend Thanksgiving with her family. As I said in the letter, I do not know a thing about the rules and regulations, but my observations from past cases is that the case manager has waited an excessively lengthy time before bringing the legal documents before the judge. So, I merely expressed my hope that there be no senseless delay.

I would say that if I were the case manager, I would respect the concerns of someone who would take the time to write me, and I would reply with a letter addressing his/her concerns. To ignore someone is a sign of disrespect and rudeness... reflecting on him/her. By betting they will ignore my letter tells me that you believe the court clerk's personnel are rude and disrespectful.

November 1, 2025 at 1:56 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous
I believe that CGM should be treated as any other N.C. inmate. What you’re asking for is for her to be allowed something not allowed to any other inmate.

Ask your good friend Shan Carter if he gets “legal mail” from non-lawyers. Ask him how he manages filing motions and complaints on his behalf.
October 29, 2025 at 7:11 PM


Hey, Anony.

I am not asking for Ms. Mangum to be treated differently from any other inmate. All other inmates get hardcopy legal mail directly from their attorneys. Because Ms. Mangum has been prevented by the State from having legal counsel and attorneys in the private sector will not represent her, she is different from other inmates in that respect.

Regarding Shan Carter, who is not my friend but a person for whom I advocate, I am not sure if he receives any legal mail from anyone. Shan Carter is very intelligent and has a legal mind and has read a lot about the legal process. Not every inmate is engaged in their own case or the legal process. It is impossible for Ms. Mangum to work on her case because she has no access to prosecution discovery, and other resources.

Also, I've spent thirty days in the hoosegow, so I know how difficult it is to concentrate or work while incarcerated. The noise is unbearable, except after midnight until four in the morning. Ms. Mangum needs help, and with the State not providing it and private sector lawyers refusing, I'm the only option for her.

November 1, 2025 at 2:56 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous
You keep failing to respond to Prince Humperdinck’s original post. Here’s what he stated:
“ Constitutional rights to a state--appointed attorney apply to the felony…trial and the appeals -- as the appeals are considered a continuation of the initial criminal case.
A MAR is not a continuation of the criminal case. a MAR is a separate proceeding -- an attack on a conviction or sentence.”

What is your proof that Constitutional rights to a state--appointed attorney apply to MORE THAN the felony trial and the appeals? It isn’t listed in your lawsuit or any motion.

What legal precedent shows that a MAR IS a continuation of the criminal case and NOT a separate proceeding? This legal precedent is not identified in your lawsuit or any motion.

By all means, enlighten us.
October 29, 2025 at 7:26 PM


Hey, Anony.

The legal justification I would direct you to has to do with the NC General Assembly statute that created the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission. She deserved Ms. Mangum had a right to be considered by that State agency... but by not allowing me to even present her case, the NC IIC basically discriminated against her.

November 1, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

How about a little grace? I am, in essence, a one-man band... juggling woodwinds, brass, strings, and percussion. Most of my time is spent on filing and drafting documents, writing letters, working on Substack, and spending meaningful time with Adonis. I try to post and respond to all comment on this blog site as soon as possible, but doing so is low on my list of priorities.

November 1, 2025 at 3:11 PM
Anonymous said...

So, you you don’t have proof that CGM ( or any other N.C. inmate) has the right to a court appointed attorney beyond their felony trial and appeal.
Thanks for that clarification.
You also can’t identify a legal precedent that shows that a MAR a continuation of a criminal case, and not a separate legal proceeding.
Thanks for that clarification.

Now, seeing that you have clarified that both the above statements are true, I can only assume you realize that your civil lolsuit is baseless.

With regard to the N.C. General Assembly statutes:
Key aspects of the statute

Case Acceptance: The commission must have credible, verifiable evidence of innocence that was not presented at trial or considered in a previous hearing to accept a case for review.

Application Process: A convicted person must assert complete innocence of the felony and any lesser offenses to be considered for review.
Referral: Claims can be referred to the commission by any court, a state or local agency, the claimant, or the claimant's counsel.

The first italicized statement explains why the IIC will not accept CGM’s case. Neither your opinion or Dr. Wecht’s opinion are evidence, and Dr. Wecht’s opinion was considered in a previous MAR.
CGM fails on the application process because she cannot assert innocence in the stabbing of Daye.
Finally, you cannot refer her to the IIC, as you are not a state or local agency, the claimant, or the claimant’s counsel.

Next time, read the statutes before you reference them.

November 1, 2025 at 7:05 PM
Anonymous said...

You’re asking for Crystal Mangum to get so-called “legal mail” from someone NOT an attorney, That IS something no other N.C. inmate can do.

November 2, 2025 at 4:44 AM
Anonymous said...

They either treat a letter from a pro se litigant as a motion or ignore it, Sid - and by “they”, I mean the judge- not any other court personnel.

I wasn’t aware of the contents of the letter, but this sounds like it can be treated as a motion.

You see, you cannot request a "speedy trial" from a court case manager in a civil case (a speedy trial is a constitutional right for criminal defendants, not a standard right in civil cases). You can, however, make a motion for one.

So there you go - Option 2.

See? 2 options.
And it doesn’t reflect poorly on the case manager or other court personnel whatever action the judge decides to take.

You really are ignoring information that you can literally have your phone find for you in seconds.

November 2, 2025 at 5:23 AM
Anonymous said...

They either treat a letter from a pro se litigant as a motion or ignore it, Sid - and by “they”, I mean the judge- not any other court personnel.

I wasn’t aware of the contents of the letter, but this sounds like it can be treated as a motion.

You see, you cannot request a "speedy trial" from a court case manager in a civil case (a speedy trial is a constitutional right for criminal defendants, not a standard right in civil cases). You can, however, make a motion for one.

So there you go - Option 2.

See? 2 options.
And it doesn’t reflect poorly on the case manager or other court personnel whatever action the judge decides to take.

You really are ignoring information that you can literally have your phone find for you in seconds.

November 2, 2025 at 5:23 AM
Anonymous said...

Crystal Mangum is projected to be released from prison on February 27, 2026.

November 4, 2025 at 6:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

Clearly, the surgeons who operated on Reginald Daye and treated him during his hospitalization are in the best position to determine whether or not there was a complication from the stab wound. They were never subpoenaed or testified or presented affidavits. The two surgeons' potential contributions in challenging the spurious conclusions of Dr. Clay Nichols are even better than the assessment by world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril H. Wecht because they were firsthand directly involved.

Because Dr. Sabino Zani and Dr. Luigi Pascarella were not heard from at trial or post-conviction, Ms. Mangum's case qualifies for evaluation and representation by the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission.
Don't you agree?

November 5, 2025 at 7:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Not if I can help it.

November 5, 2025 at 7:49 AM
Anonymous said...

Sid - to get anyone to listen, you would need to speak with them and get affidavits - you assume no one talked to them and determined their testimony would not be helpful. You want others to do your work for you. It's like with Milton Morgan - you have been told, repeatedly, that if it's true that he was threatened and forced to lie, Crystal would get a new trial - but you refuse to reach out to him for the affidavit. It's the same with the doctors. You need to go and get affidavits from them, showing their testimony would have mattered. Stop assuming others did not talk to them. You need to talk to them.

November 5, 2025 at 9:18 AM
Anonymous said...

You can't.

November 5, 2025 at 11:29 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)