According to the News & Observer of April 10, 2010, a three year old boy who was adopted from China last November was so severely beaten by his mother on March 19, 2010, that he has been in a coma ever since. The child had a skull fracture with large bruises on the frontal region of his brain. Michele Andi Stein, the mother, was finally arrested and charged by Apex police with one count of felony child abuse, and severe bodily injury. A month earlier in February, workers at the day care the child attended noticed bruises on his back and leg, and the month prior to that the boy was admitted to the UNC-Chapel Hill Burn Center with second and third degree burns to both of his hands.
It is of interest to note that Ms. Stein was not charged with attempted first degree murder or assault and battery despite the traumatically induced coma. Furthermore, she was arrested with a bail of only $200,000.00. Now compare this with Ms. Mangum, who was alleged by the Durham police to have scratched her boyfriend and thrown punches and objects at him. He did not sustain any injuries and did not require any medical attention in a dispute which he termed as a “misunderstanding” and one which he did not press charges. Also, no deadly weapon was involved in the alleged “altercation.” Yet, it is Ms. Mangum who is charged with attempted first degree murder, assault and battery, and placed on a $1million bail… an amount five times more than the mother accused of beating her three year old child and leaving him with a skull fracture and a contused brain which are responsible for him being comatose for three weeks and counting.
The answer to the following rhetorical question of why the disparity in the charges and bail between the two aforementioned cases can be found with four words… the Duke Lacrosse case! The severely excessive accumulation of charges against Ms. Mangum is obviously nothing more than payback for accusations she made years earlier in the Duke Lacrosse case against the sons of the Carpetbagger families. Had the same scenario played out against a couple that did not include Ms. Mangum, then it is more likely than not that the man involved in the dispute, if anyone, would be the one to be arrested. But most of all, none of the charges (such as attempted first degree murder, assault and battery, communicating threats, destruction of personal property, identity theft) would have been made. And had the police been in the apartment when a woman without connections to the Duke Lacrosse case set her boyfriend’s clothing ablaze in the bath tub, then the police would’ve merely turned on the faucet in the tub and put out the fire. They would definitely not have called the fire department and charged her with any counts of arson.
The reason the police saddled Ms. Mangum with the ridiculous charge of attempted first degree murder, assault and battery, etc. was in order to justify the enormous $1 million bail. The high bail was to assure Ms. Mangum languish in jail while the prosecution lollygags, in order to draw out Ms. Mangum’s incarceration. Well, if we’re careful, it might be many years that Ms. Mangum spends behind bars before her case gets to court, as in the James Arthur Johnson case (he wrongfully spent 39 months in jail while the prosecution tried to force him to accept a plea deal), and the Floyd Brown case (he spent fourteen years in jail on a murder charge without his case ever going to trial. The Attorney General’s Office promised to investigate the Brown case… but to no one’s surprise, there’s been no investigation).
The end objective of the police and prosecutors was to impose a lengthy jail stay upon Ms. Mangum. This amoral scheme exposes the visceral hatred and malice Durham prosecutors have towards those viewed unfavorably by the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. The vacuous minds of those responsible for Ms. Mangum’s lengthy jail stay are undoubtedly under the control of the Carpetbagger Jihadist Movement… like many in the public, victim’s of wide-spread and systemic Jedi mind-tricks of the biased mainstream media.
As things stand, after Monday, April 5, 2010, Ms. Mangum, for allegedly scratching her boyfriend has been indicted by a grand jury of the following: (1) first degree arson, (2) three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, (3) injury to personal property, and (4) resisting a public officer. And for these alleged charges, she is under a $250,000.00 bail, which if met, according to Judge Claude Allen, would require that she be released to house arrest. Keep in mind that the mother arrested for her 3-year old adopted son’s skull fracture, bruised brain, and three week coma has a bail of only $200,000.00, and if she makes bond, there is no stipulation by the court that she be held under house arrest.
The disparity in the treatment of the two mothers in this above case comparison is extraordinary and blatant, and a prime example of the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color,” which has widespread application in this state. The same disparity of treatment applies to that which former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was subjected to by the prosecutors, courts, and the media for his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case… his disbarment, his jail sentence, the withholding of his status of immunity as a state employee, his lack of representation by the Attorney General’s Office, to mention a few.
A system wherein court decisions are meted out with disparity is fraught with the very inequities and injustices against which it is supposed to protect. One step that can be taken to chisel off a piece of the slab of mockery and disdain under which the North Carolina system of disparate justice is currently pinned, is to eliminate the bail for Crystal Mangum and release her from custody under her own recognizance. She is definitely not a flight risk, she is definitely not a threat to society, her incarceration is an unnecessary and undue burden on taxpayers, and the charges by the grand jury do not warrant her incarceration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
Sidney,
I want to wish you a Happy Innocence Day on behalf of all of your readers and to thank you for your valuable contributions!
As you know, three years ago today, Roy Cooper announced the results of his investigation and confirmed the conclusion reached previously by virtually all of those who had closely followed the frame and had reviewed the publicly-available evidence: There was no credible evidence that any of the crimes for which the defendants had been indicted had even occurred. As a result, Mr. Cooper and his investigators concluded that the defendants were innocent of those charges.
As you also know, others associated with the original investigation have reached many of the same conclusions.
Former City Manager Patrick Baker (to whom the DPD reported during the frame) provided the following summary in his report to the City Council (emphasis added):
“…let me acknowledge the City’s concurrence with Attorney General Roy Cooper’s decision to dismiss all of the charges…as well as his declaration that these young men are innocent of the charges for which they had been indicted. While the criminal proceedings against them have ended, a true and measured analysis and critique of their tortured path to justice is just beginning.
The ultimate question that will be the legacy of this matter is why it took the criminal justice system nearly thirteen months to reach the conclusion that the allegations of rape, sexual assault and kidnapping were unfounded.”
Although as you repeatedly remind us, Mr. Nifong has not stated that the defendants were “innocent” of the charges, preferring to rely on the innuendo that “something happened” that night, he has conceded that he had “no credible evidence” to support the charges he brought against them. As a result, one must conclude that the prosecution was not justified. In his July 2007 apology to the players, Mr. Nifong explained his understanding of Mr. Cooper’s declaration of innocence (emphasis added):
“Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans were entitled to the presumption of innocence when they were under indictment. Surely, they are entitled to more than that now as they go forward with the rest of their lives. And that is what the attorney general tried to give them in his declaration that they are innocent.”
Your readers owe you a debt of gratitude as you ignore Mr. Nifong’s advice.
You consistently demonstrate how irrational and mean-spirited are those who hold out the notion that the defendants may have been guilty—in spite of the lack of inculpatory evidence and the massive amount of exculpatory evidence. You show an unlimited ability to ignore or misrepresent problematic facts as you mindlessly repeat the same mantra over and over and over again. You take positions that require you to believe Mr. Nifong to be either a complete moron or a shameless liar. You show that Mr. Nifong is not fit to practice law even as you claim to support him.
Thank you, Sidney, for demonstrating repeatedly how thoroughly dishonest Mr. Nifong’s supporters really are.
To JSwift:
"I want to wish you a Happy Innocence Day on behalf of all of your readers and to thank you for your valuable contributions!"
I believe a more appropriate name for the date of April 11th would be "Jedi Mind-trick Day" because the promulgation by Roy Cooper in 2007 and falsely spread by the biased media has misled millions of trusting media subscribers. It is truly a shameful day to commemorate. And it doesn't matter if Roy Cooper, the City Manager of Durham, you, me, or the Pope proclaim the three Duke Lacrosse defendants to be "innocent," saying so doesn't make it so... and legally and factually they are not innocent or exonerated.
Thank you again for your wishes on this solemn Jedi Mind-trick Day.
Syd wrote: "And it doesn't matter if Roy Cooper, the City Manager of Durham, you, me, or the Pope proclaim the three Duke Lacrosse defendants to be "innocent," saying so doesn't make it so... and legally and factually they are not innocent or exonerated."
Syd, surely you jest. As you must be aware, under NC law all people charged with a crime are presumed innocent. NCGS Section 15A-1236. Only a jury, properly constituted may disrupt the presumption. Thus, legally and factually David Evans, Reid Seligman and Colin Finnerty are and have always been innocent.
Walt-in-Durham
Of course Syd likes to ignore the law of the land when it does not support him. Coffin v. US, 156 U.S. 432 (1895).
Walt-in-Durham
I still don't see why the J4N people don't put up the bail money. Since CGM presents no flight risk, the money will be returned very soon.
"I still don't see why the J4N people don't put up the bail money. Since CGM presents no flight risk, the money will be returned very soon."
Because they are like Nifong, totally willing to use and abuse her, but not at all willing to help her.
Walt-in-Durham
Mangum has a prior record of endangering the lives of others.
She drunkenly tried to run over a cop with a stolen taxi, remember?
So her bail was higher.
Anyway, quit crying, the indictment charges have been changed, and lessened - along with her bail.
Sad and macabre that you keep calling the lack of accountability by Nifong (one day in jail for mugging and smirking and mooning the justice system, ha!) - and his cohorts in Durham - a carpetbagger jihad; all your rants and raves in favor of Nifong amount to nothing but a futile suicide mission by a mad zealot that results in a fleeting, vaporous cloud of pink mist.
"The end objective of the police and prosecutors was to impose a lengthy jail stay upon Ms. Mangum. This amoral scheme exposes the visceral hatred and malice Durham prosecutors have towards those viewed unfavorably by the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants."
Huh. The LAX players and their families are suing the City and the Police Department, but the City and the Police Department are doing the "evil bidding" of the families of the LAX players. Where's the logic in THAT conclusion?
Ahhh... now I get it. Must be Stockholm syndrome!
The only person with irrational hatred is you, Sidney.
I still think they've locked CGM up because she's too much of a loose cannon and could say things that would hurt the city in this lawsuit.
Sydney - Well, if we’re [not??] careful, it might be many years that Ms. Mangum spends behind bars before her case gets to court, as in the James Arthur Johnson case (he wrongfully spent 39 months in jail while the prosecution tried to force him to accept a plea deal),...
Which points out the need for a speedy trial law in NC, as well as reform of the 'case management' system that allows the state DAs to control the docket and judge shop.
The NC NAACP and others, by abandoning all that they had championed for decades regarding due process, missed a great opportunity to address the serious flaws in NC's criminal justice system.
All because of a black druggie whore who lied at every step of the way.
The Louvre of DNA, aka Crystal, will probably spend a few more weeks in jail, then be released with time served. That appears to be what her defense is working toward.
Furthermore, she [Michele Stein] was arrested with a bail of only $200,000.00.
Sydney, different prosecutorial districts, different judges. You might also want to investigate just what type of bond was set for Stein (cash or secured).
Btw, Stein was released Friday after posting $100K cash bond.
And they [the DA] went through the grand jury process in order to decrease embarrassment that they would endure with a hearing in open court.
Crystal the lying whore, because she was arrested prior to indictment, is still entitled to a probable cause hearing. She and her attorney have agreed to several continuances that have delayed that hearing. It would not be the DA who would be 'embarrassed' by the presentation of evidence in a PC hearing, it would be Crystal and her supporters (if indeed any of you have any shame).
But your mention of a PC hearing points out another serious flaw in the NC justice system, that not all defendants are afforded the right to have a PC hearing. Your hero Nifong made sure that the LAX players were denied a PC hearing because he knew that the lack of evidence that a crime had even occurred would have stopped his persecution in its tracks before the primary. He could not afford that, so he allowed several person whom he described as dangerous rapists roam the streets for several weeks without arresting them.
Anonymous @ April 12, 2010 8:26 AM -I still think they've locked CGM up because she's too much of a loose cannon and could say things that would hurt the city in this lawsuit.
Unlikely, given that one way to secure her cooperation would be to take it easy on her.
But, it may be more of that popular witness intimindation game that DPD and PD14 like to engage in.
Either way, the DA & DPD are hardly doing the plaintiffs' 'biddng', as Sydney would have us believe. Sydney's just being ignunt with that.
Sidney,
If the city authorities are under the control of the Carpetbagger Jihad, wouldn't it be easier just to roll over and play dead, and let the Jihad's friends win the lawsuits?
Wow Sid -- Do you have a legal source for your statement that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are "not innocent or exonerated."?
Or is this just opinion?
Is CGM guilty as well? Do we need the court to declare her innocent?
To Anonymous:
Wow Sid -- Do you have a legal source for your statement that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are "not innocent or exonerated."?
Or is this just opinion?
I do, indeed, have a legal source for my statement that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are not "innocent" or not "exonerated."
Campbell University School of Law Professor Anthony V. Baker has stated that the attorney general's innocent promulgation carries no legal weight. He stated, "The A.G. presents a case but does not sit as 'trier of fact' -- or ultimate adjudicator -- of it. That is the sole province of the jury, or a judge sitting in lieu of a jury."
Now if you have a legal source that states otherwise, I would welcome hearing from you or your source.
No Sid - What you have is someone claiming that the AG's statement has no legal weight. That is NOT the same as stating that the Duke Lacrosse accused are not inocent. Your inability to see that distinction is one of the things I find most frustrating.
Since you asked, however here's my legal source --
Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895), an appellate case before the United States Supreme Court in 1895 which established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.
Here is the commentary by the Court regarding presumption of innocence:
“ The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. … Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist. ”
Until proven GUILTY (which they were not), the accused are innocent.
Where did this Anthony Baker quote come from? Was it an article or news report? I attempted to google it, and the only references were this website. I'd like to read the entire article, or see the entire interview.
Sidney,
For god's sake, stop whining and feeling sorry for yourself, for Mike and for CGM. Do something about putting up the bail money. You won't lose the money since you are certain that CGM is not a flight risk. As that character Kenhyderal to wire you some money from Dubai; he probably has lots of middle eastern oil money and can probably come up with $100,000 all by himself.
Syd said: "I do, indeed, have a legal source for my statement that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are not "innocent" or not "exonerated."
Campbell University School of Law Professor Anthony V. Baker...."
You really do not understand the meaning of Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) do you? Or, do you just choose to ignore all the law that conflicts with your partisan view of Nifong?
Walt-in-Durham
To Walt and Anonymous:
Regarding the proclamation of "innocent" by Attorney General Roy Cooper, I will address that in my upcoming blog.
With regards to Walt's comment:
Walt said...
"You really do not understand the meaning of Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) do you? Or, do you just choose to ignore all the law that conflicts with your partisan view of Nifong?"
Walt, what I would like to know is does Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)give the power to a state's attorney general to proclaim a criminal defendant "innocent," "not-guilty," or "guilty?"
I don't think so.
In light of JSwift's "Happy Innocence Day" post, I thought I'd bring you this:
http://gardencity.patch.com/articles/collin-finnerty-named-finalist-for-tewaaraton-trophy#c
For those unfamiliar with the Tewaaraton Trophy, it is the Lacrosse version of the Heisman. Congratulations to Collin Finnerty on this honor.
The fact that the prosecutor is not a "trier of fact," which is all that Prof. Baker says in the statement you quote, does NOT mean that the prosecutor's evaluation of the case has no impact on the legal status of the defendant.
Yes, only a jury (or a judge in a non-jury trial) can determine whether a criminal defendant is "guilty" or "not guilty." (There is no such verdict in the US judicial system as "innocent.")
However, any criminal suspect is LEGALLY INNOCENT until determined guilty after a trial. If the prosecutor decides that the charges against the suspect are baseless (as did AG Cooper) and dismisses them, then there will be no trial and the decision to dismiss means that the suspect IS IN FACT AND UNDER LAW INNOCENT in respect of those charges at all time in the future unless new evidence is introduced at a later date that causes the investigators to take up the case again.
Whether Prof. Baker's observations are taken out of context, or whether he just doesn't know the facts, he certainly cannot be saying that AG Cooper lacked authority to determine whether the facts of the case, as established by his investigation, warranted the charges. That is precisely his job. The meaning of the word "innocent" in his statement was not a legal declaration per se (although it is certainly correct because all US citizens are "legally innocent" of the infinite number of unfounded or slanderous charges that might be leveled against us) but because his investigation demonstrated that the three men accused factually could not have committed the crime with which Nifong (and the grand jury) charged them. [Two of the accused weren't physically present in any proximity to the false accuser during the time the "rape" was supposed to occur - simple time/space physics.]
Where'd the Anthony Baker quote come from Sid?
Sidney,your blog has been reported to Blogger as being racist and containing hate speech.
To Michael:
Michael said...
The fact that the prosecutor is not a "trier of fact," which is all that Prof. Baker says in the statement you quote, does NOT mean that the prosecutor's evaluation of the case has no impact on the legal status of the defendant.
Professor Anthony Baker of Campbell University School of Law stated clearly that Attorney General Roy Cooper's "Innocent Promulgation" of April 11, 2007, has no impact on the legal status of the defendant. Cooper's only option as a special prosecutor was to decide whether to proceed with the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse defendants or whether to dismiss the charges against them, which he did. Any other legalistic mumbo-jumbo is totally irrelevant and not worth a wooden nickel.
To Anonymous:
Anonymous said...
In light of JSwift's "Happy Innocence Day" post, I thought I'd bring you this:
http://gardencity.patch.com/articles/collin-finnerty-named-finalist-for-tewaaraton-trophy#c
For those unfamiliar with the Tewaaraton Trophy, it is the Lacrosse version of the Heisman. Congratulations to Collin Finnerty on this honor.
Thank you for bringing this news about Mr. Finnerty to my attention.
As I have often said, I have neither animus nor ill will towards former Duke Lacrosse defendant Collin Finnerty.
My hope for Mr. Finnerty is that he has learned from his past bad behavior that resulted in a conviction on a charge of assault and battery against two men whom he incorrectly assumed were gay. I would be extremely pleased if he recognizes the errors of his past behavior in this particular situation, and in the future treats everyone with dignity and respect, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Nifong Supporter,
I completely agree with your post. Mr. Cooper overstepped his authority with the innocent statement which means nothing other than he was not going to proceed with the charges against the accused. Him calling the players innocent shows a disregard for the NC AG's office that is shocking. It was not his job or his place to make that statement. Calling Nifong a rogue prosecutor yet declining to investigate what made him think that was also showing disrespect for his office. Referring to CGM's medical files was something he should not have done without her permission and shows a disregard for the alleged victim that is also quite sad.
Mr. Cooper was not the judge or jury in this case and had no business running his mouth like that. I don't know what kind of pressure was on him from his out of state contributors but it must have been considerable for him to do make such extraordinary claims. Mr. Coopers "opinion" on such things was not asked for nor do I give a hill of beans what his "opinion" is. He now uses this "innocent" declaration to garner votes, making it seem like he is some kind of hero, which was probably his secondary purpose in addition to keep the contributions coming his way.
Oh dear, Sidney.....
so now you have adopted an alias of
Cooperisnohero to help prop up your irrational and delusional arguments.
If anyone Cooper's comment you can see that it is identical to Syd's syntax, phraseology and twisted logic. Nice try Sid, but you are way too naive and technologically inept to pull this sort of scam.
Sid -- You keep referencing this alleged "quote" from Anthony Baker, but after multiple requests, you have NOT produced a source for this quote. I can only conclude that no source exists.
I can assure you I am not Nifong supporter. I find amusing the ease at which you make such a false accusation as long as it advances your cause.
Syd said: "Walt, what I would like to know is does Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)give the power to a state's attorney general to proclaim a criminal defendant "innocent," "not-guilty," or "guilty?"
I don't think so."
Coffin makes the presumption of innocence the law of the land Syd. To that extent, Cooper's declaration of innocence only confirms the status of the wrongfully indicted defendants. What is more significant about the Attorney General's declaration, and the City of Durham's as well, is it admits that a fair examination of the evidence found no probable cause for the prosecution. In fact, the Attorney General found no credible evidence to link David Evans, Colin Finnerty or Reid Seligman to a crime that involved Crystal at all. A conclusion that your boy Nifong entirely agrees with.
Walt-in-Durham
Cooper is no hereo -- I find amusing your attempts at spelling....
I really enjoy reading this blog. I have never seen anyone quite as disingenuous as Sidney. He ignores all arguments that go against him. Now he has all these new sock puppets which he uses to praises himself and the beauty of his arguments. Anyone that tries to argue with him in good faith must be totally frustrated.
From the N&O
In a startling development today, Durham resident Sidney B Harr was declared innocent of Tax Fraud by the NC Attorney General. When asked for comment Harr said:
"...and it doesn't matter if Roy Cooper, the City Manager of Durham, you, the three Duke Lacrosse players, or the Pope proclaim me to be "innocent [of Tax Fraud]," saying so doesn't make it so... and legally and factually I am not innocent or exonerated."
Well..At least you cited a source for the comment....That's more than we get from Sid.
Sidney, I fear you have been lying to us!!
Crystal 'Crusty' Mangum is not in a Durham Jail - she is in Pittsburg.
Quoting the Carbolic Smoke ball blog (http://carbolicsmoke.com/)
Roethlisberger Celebrates Exoneration By Hiring Duke Lacrosse Stripper For Private Show
PITTSBURGH – Minutes after it was announced Ben Roethlisberger won’t be charged with sexual assault in connection with a March 5 accusation by a 20-year-old college student, Mr. Roethlisberger declared that he has “learned a lot from my ordeal,” and said that he would celebrate by retaining Duke lacrosse stripper Crystal Gail Mangum for “a private show.”
Ms. Mangum, who gained national notoriety by falsely accusing three Duke University lacrosse players of rape, was flown to Pittsburgh where she met Mr. Roethlisberger at a secret location. There, she reportedly entertained him, without any witnesses, for one-half hour.
Mr. Roethlisberger admitted that “there was plenty of groping, and I made sure my DNA got all over her.” Midway through the show, Ms. Mangum reportedly stormed out ”because of something Roethlisberger said.”
Mr. Roethlisberger said he “trusts totally in Ms. Mangum’s goodwill that she won’t falsely accuse me of rape.” He added that, because he is a young, famous, wealthy athlete, he will continue to “have a good time with the ladies.”
To Cooperisnohero:
Thank you for your comments which are insightful and correct. I agree with you wholeheartedly, and invite you to continue to contribute comments to the blog.
It is interesting to note that I have not heard one attorney say that A.G. Cooper had the legal authority to proclaim the Duke Lacrosse players "innocent."
To anonymous 7:35 a.m.:
I agree wholeheartedly. You are clearly right. So good to see that other people log in here for the comedy value.
To anonymous 4:39 p.m.:
You took the words right out of my mouth. Clearly 7:35 a.m. knows what he is talking about. He must be a professor of philosophy at some wonderful university such as Duke.
To anonymous 4:39 and 4:41,
I am anonymous 7:35 a.m.
Thank you for your kind words. It is good to see other people appreciate the comedy inherent in this blog.
In fact, I do not teach at Duke. I live on top of Mt. Rainier since I have noticed this rarefied air increases my i.q. by at least 40 points.
"It is interesting to note that I have not heard one attorney say that A.G. Cooper had the legal authority to proclaim the Duke Lacrosse players "innocent.""
Once again you ignore both the law and the facts.
Walt-in-Durham
Once again you ignore both the law and the facts.
Syd's lawyers do not cite case law.
It is interesting to note that Sid has yet to produce a reference for the alleged Anthony Baker quote.
Do you think, if I move to Mt. McKinley, my i.q. will increase by 40 points?
To anonymous 5:57,
Mt McKinley is not nearly high enough. Nevertheless, your i.q. might increase by 25 points.
It's just that Alaska is so far away! I'll see if I can go there for those4 15 additional points.
My son,
I'll hold an open spot for you atop Mt. Rainier.
I hope for Syd's sake that Cooper doesn't declare him innocent of raping Crystal. If he does, then Syd "legally and factually will not be innocent or exonerated" of that either.
To anonymous 6:05:
I'll be on the next plane to Anchorage. Soon I too will have an i.q. of 140.
Sidney,
We'll hold an open spot for you atop Mt. Rainier. Since the NC AG and DA's are afraid of heights, you'll be safe from arrest for raping CGM.
Campbell University School of Law Professor Anthony V. Baker has stated that the attorney general's fear of heights carries no legal weight.
Anonymous said...
Sidney,
For god's sake, stop whining and feeling sorry for yourself, for Mike and for CGM. Do something about putting up the bail money. You won't lose the money since you are certain that CGM is not a flight risk. As that character Kenhyderal to wire you some money from Dubai; he probably has lots of middle eastern oil money and can probably come up with $100,000 all by himself.
I'm happy to hear that Crystal's bail has been reduced to $100,000. With the proper security a Bail Bond Company would secure her release for 10% of that amount. As I said before, for me, a foreigner, to post her bail would require the entire $100,000 be sent. whereas a North Carolina resident, with collateral, could have her released for $10,000 cash. B.t.w. Dubai has no "oil".
Kenhyderal,
First you said you weren't eligible to post bail. Now you claim it's just that you'd have to come up with the entire sum. In fact the bail bondsman is not going to tell Sidney he can't be paid from money that comes from out of the country.
Just wire the sum of $10,000 to Sidney. He'll know how to handle it.
I know it's Abu Dhabi that has the oil. I still see Dubai building incredible tourist complexes, so some of the oil money must be coming there.
Stop it with all your lame excuses. Put up or shut up!
Both are correct. Anyone, anywhere in the world, could have Crystal released by posting the entire $100,000. Only an American, with enough collateral to securitize the $100,000, could get her release by posting $10,000 with a Bail Bond and which would include a non-refundable portion as their profit.
Post a Comment