On this blog site I have frequently complained about the gross mistreatment I received when I attended a public event on Duke campus in April 2010. I have also mentioned my attempts to reach out to politicians who represent me in hopes that they would help resolve this issue to everyone’s satisfaction.
The other day, a commenter asked the following: Anonymous said...
Sidney, give us the specific reasons why your US Representative declined to intervene with Duke University on your behalf. Could you quote the reasons word for word. April 7, 2011 7:31 AM
Therefore, I devote this blog in response, with links to the letters in question. I wrote not just one, but three politicians who represented me… U.S. Congressmen David Price and Brad Miller, and State Representative Deborah Ross.
What I basically sought from them was a letter seeking an explanation from Duke University about its alleged treatment of me, or if they were satisfied with the extensive amount of evidence presented on my website, a letter to admonish Duke for its excessive and barbaric treatment of me. In other words, I wanted Duke University to know that my political representatives, if not concerned about my treatment, were at least giving it their attention.
Not to my surprise, all three of the politicians who represent me refused to get involved. To do so would require the will to seek justice for me, and the courage to go up against Duke University – attributes which, with regards to this instance, were regrettably lacking among Price, Miller, and Ross. The media, employing its Jedi mind-tricks on the public, has made support of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong political poison… regardless of issues of fairness, ethics, and justice. In addition, Duke University is a powerful conglomeration with deep pockets which are capable of filling coffers of candidates.
Requesting assistance from my representatives in the form of a letter was both appropriate and doable. Congressmen Price and Miller both tried to convince me that their First Amendment Right to Free Speech was somehow impinged by their roles in the U.S. Capitol. They should know better than anyone that their right to express concern, support, disappointment, or any other emotion on a constituent of theirs who has been mistreated, is protected by the Bill of Right and by common decency.
I do take offense from Mr. Price making the reference about “self-imposed exile from the (Duke) campus,” which is meant to absolve Duke from any responsibility for me not feeling comfortable to return to Duke. There is no doubt in my mind that Duke University would have arrested me had I not had the fortune of running into Duke law professor James Coleman. Professor Coleman is a friend of mine, and his intercession on my behalf is the only thing that kept me from being tossed into the clinker. By its actions, Duke did, in effect, exile me.
Mr. Price also attempts to give credence to Duke’s flimsy excuse of solicitation, which I find insulting. No reasonable adult would believe that handing out a business card to a selected number of individuals and inviting them, in a private conversation, to visit a website should be construed as soliciting.
Bottom line regarding Mr. Price is that he had two of his constituents who were at odds with one another. He choose to side with the constituent with deep pockets rather than the one with justice on his side.
At the time that Congressman Miller and Representative Ross responded to my appeal, they redefined my problem as being a legal matter, which it wasn’t. I had hoped for their intervention on my behalf for the explicit purpose of preventing it from becoming one. Unfortunately, that was not the case and I was left with no option but to take it to the next level. Had a politician aggressively become involved in seeing that justice was served, I believe there would have been a decent chance that the issue could have been amicably and expeditiously settled.
Below is the link to the letters.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB2/ltr5reps.htm
Also, below is a link to Part 15 of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper.”
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc181.htm
246 comments:
1 – 200 of 246 Newer› Newest»You make a valid point, and I will be more than happy to oblige, once WRAL, ABC-11, NBC-17, The News & Observer, and MSNBC do the same with regards to their false and misleading statements.
This response is unacceptable.
You claim to practice "restorative justice." You lied.
Your obligation to correct your misstatements is not conditional on others correcting what you believe are their misstatements.
You have expressed the view that without a verdict by a judge or jury, no observer can express an opinion as to "innocence" of a defendant. Others do not subscribe to that belief.
You violated your stated belief. Practice what you preach. Restorative justice. Now.
You refused to practice "restorative justice" as you have pledged. I repeat my request.
On the main committee website, you have a highly misleading headline for a story from July 14, 2010. Your headline proclaims "Crystal Mangum... the falsely accused. Innocent... "
http://justice4nifong.com/direc/newsDirec/
news16s.htm
A reader of the headline may have reached the erroneous conclusion that a judge or jury had found Crystal not guilty.
As you have reminded us repeatedly, in our system of justice, a declaration of innocence can come only from a judge or jury. Crystal's case had not been heard when that story was posted. No judge or jury had found Crystal not guilty of charges. Your story appears to rely on Crystal's statement. In our system, we do not permit defendants to proclaim themselves innocent.
In her subsequent trial, a jury found her guilty of misdemeanors and could not reach a verdict on the felony arson charge. That charge was dismissed.
As a result, I am sure that you agree that Crystal is not "innocent" of felony arson. No judge or jury reached this verdict.
I ask that you practice "restorative justice" in this case.
1. You must admit responsibility for your actions.
2. You must apologize to your victims (i.e., your readers).
3. You must compensate your victims for their losses. Here I propose that you correct your error and explain how you made this mistake.
4. You must take steps to prevent the recurrence of this offense.
In December 2010, you made the following claim:
Unlike MSNBC, Duke University, and most media types, when I err, I move quickly to apply principles of “restorative justice” in response… which means accepting responsibility, apologizing, correcting the mistake and doing whatever possible to see that it doesn’t recur.
Now you make your practice of "restorative justice" conditional. I believe that you deliberately misled your readers with this statement.
I ask you to practice "restorative justice" with respect to this pledge.
1. You must admit responsibility for your actions.
2. You must apologize to your victims (i.e., your readers).
3. You must compensate your victims for their losses. Here I propose that you correct your error and explain how you made this mistake.
4. You must take steps to prevent the recurrence of this offense.
Still no explanation of how the carpetbaggers caused Crystal to commit her latest crimes.
"...Duke University is a powerful conglomeration with deep pockets which are capable of filling coffers of candidates."
In spite of your protestations, you are hoping Duke will fill your coffers.
"They should know better than anyone that their right to express concern, support, disappointment, or any other emotion on a constituent of theirs who has been mistreated, is protected by the Bill of Right and by common decency."
Yet you deny that the chief law enforcement officer of North Carolina has no right to use free speech to express his belief in the innocence of three wrongfully accused men.
"Professor Coleman is a friend of mine, and his intercession on my behalf is the only thing that kept me from being tossed into the clinker. By its actions, Duke did, in effect, exile me."
So why has Professor Coleman not expressed any support for your civil rights complaint against Duke?
It is too bad that Duke did not arrest you. Your trial would have provided you an opportunity to prove that you were "innocent" of solicitation.
You are forced to go through life knowing that you are not "innocent" of the horrific crime of solicitation.
"Mr. Price also attempts to give credence to Duke’s flimsy excuse of solicitation, which I find insulting. No reasonable adult would believe that handing out a business card to a selected number of individuals and inviting them, in a private conversation, to visit a website should be construed as soliciting."
Sidney, you are not the one with the authority to decide whether or not you violated Duke's policy on solicitation.
Of course, you do deny the right of the NC attorney general to express his belief in the innocence of the Duke Lacrosse players. It is because you do not believe in their innocence.
Your attitude, that your belief outweighs the actual innocence of the Lacrosse players is another expression of your delusions of grandeur.
The Lacrosse players are innocent because they committed no crime.
"Had a politician aggressively become involved in seeing that justice was served...".
Sidney, again, you are not the one with the authority to decide whether or not justice should be served. That is for the court to decide.
Can you make your case before the court?
Sidney, I agree with restorative justice.
Since no jury or judge decided whether or not Crystal was guilty or not guilty of arson, by your own expressed principles you can not state that Crystal is either innocent or falsely accused.
Sid,
Your j4n teeshirts include the URL for the Committee website. That alone could be seen as "solicitation."
Duke has required other groups to turn their shirts inside out. It seems that they have a different definition for "solicitation" than you.
Why are you more important than others?
.
Law professorship named in honor of Robinson Everett
By Chronicle Staff , April 1, 2011
The School of Law announced Thursday that it will establish an endowed professorship in honor of Robinson Everett, who taught at the school for more than five decades.
Everett, Law ’59, was a senior judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and taught military justice, criminal law, sentencing and criminal procedure at Duke. He died in 2009 at age 81.
“The professorship will allow us to recruit and attract faculty of the highest caliber who will carry on the traditions of excellence in teaching and service that professor Everett modeled so capably and generously,” Law School Dean David Levi said in a Duke news release. “I can think of no better way to honor him.”
A total of $2.5 million has been raised for the professorship so far by a total of 72 donors, according to the release. The Kathrine Everett Charitable Trust, named in honor of Everett’s mother, and retired trial lawyer David Noble, Law ’66, made major contributions to the professorship. The Duke Endowment provided matching funds for the gifts, the release noted.
.
“We are grateful to the many donors and organizations that have helped us make this professorship possible,” Levi said.
Everett, a Durham native, began practicing law at his parents’ firm in 1955. His mother was one of the first women to graduate from the University of North Carolina School of Law, and his father was one of Duke’s earliest law graduates.
Everett’s career highlights included work as counsel to a U.S. Senate subcommittee in the 1960s that led to legislation that modernized the military court system. He also argued in front of the Supreme Court four times as both a plaintiff and lead counsel in a challenge of North Carolina’s 12th congressional district. In 1996, the court ruled that the district had been created unlawfully.
At Duke, Everett created the Duke Center on Law, Ethics and National Security in 1993 to promote teaching and academic research in areas related to national security law.
“Robinson Everett embodied the qualities of leadership and service in and through the law,” Levi said. “He was the model of the citizen-lawyer. By establishing this professorship, we ensure that his example will continue to inspire us.”
Well, just don't sit there
with those Dumb Looks on your faces.
Can't any of the Lacrosse Lovers
help Sidney out here?
What in the World does this have
to do with Sidney's Plight with Duke Law School?
Anonymous said...
"Still no explanation of how the carpetbaggers caused Crystal to commit her latest crimes."
I never claimed that the Carpetbaggers were responsible for the recent stabbing incident that led to Ms. Mangum's arrest. Again, I have no objective and unbiased information about the incident.
Anonymous said...
"'...Duke University is a powerful conglomeration with deep pockets which are capable of filling coffers of candidates.'
In spite of your protestations, you are hoping Duke will fill your coffers."
Upon what do you base your statement? Certainly not on the civil complaint that was filed.
Anonymous said...
"'They should know better than anyone that their right to express concern, support, disappointment, or any other emotion on a constituent of theirs who has been mistreated, is protected by the Bill of Right and by common decency.'
Yet you deny that the chief law enforcement officer of North Carolina has no right to use free speech to express his belief in the innocence of three wrongfully accused men."
I do not question Roy Cooper's right to express his belief about the innocence of the defendants, I question the appropriateness of his statement. No other prosecutor in the history of the world has ever made such a proclamation about defendants. But what I find extremely outrageous is the media's use of his illegitimate statement as a basis for misleading the public by stating that they are innocent and exonerated.
Anonymous said...
"'Professor Coleman is a friend of mine, and his intercession on my behalf is the only thing that kept me from being tossed into the clinker. By its actions, Duke did, in effect, exile me.'
So why has Professor Coleman not expressed any support for your civil rights complaint against Duke?"
Because Professor Coleman is my friend, I would not want him to publicly support my complaint against his employer. I would not expect that he would do so either because he is a very intelligent person.
Anonymous said...
"It is too bad that Duke did not arrest you. Your trial would have provided you an opportunity to prove that you were 'innocent' of solicitation.
You are forced to go through life knowing that you are not 'innocent' of the horrific crime of solicitation."
If the civil suit goes to trial, I will have an opportunity to prove myself innocent of "solicitation." Plus, I won't have to spend any jail time in the process.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney, I agree with restorative justice.
Since no jury or judge decided whether or not Crystal was guilty or not guilty of arson, by your own expressed principles you can not state that Crystal is either innocent or falsely accused."
I can express my opinion that Crystal Mangum is innocent of arson. I can furthermore express my belief that a Durham police officer set clothes ablaze in the bathtub.
My expression of opinion is much different than reporting about a news story to provide media consumers with objective and unbiased information.
Anonymous said...
"Sid,
Your j4n teeshirts include the URL for the Committee website. That alone could be seen as 'solicitation.'
Duke has required other groups to turn their shirts inside out. It seems that they have a different definition for 'solicitation' than you.
Why are you more important than others?"
There are many tee shirts that have logos and other information about products and services. Do you believe it prudent for the Duke security and police to go around harassing and arresting people with tee-shirts that advertise a business or service? It's called a "slippery slope."
"I can furthermore express my belief that a Durham police officer set clothes ablaze in the bathtub."
Why do you say that AG Cooper can not say, I have reviewed the evidence and have concluded those accused are innocent.
The Lacrosse players are innocent because they committed no crime.
"Because Professor Coleman is my friend, I would not want him to publicly support my complaint against his employer."
Why not?
I had a dispute with a previous employer, a very bitter dispute in which my superior attempted to coerce me into accepting responsibility for an error which was my superior's fault. A number of my felow employees supported me.
A law professor who will not stand up for right out of rear of his/her employer is one thing. A law professor who will not support a frivolous lawsuit is another
"My expression of opinion is much different than reporting about a news story to provide media consumers with objective and unbiased information."
Since when have you ever provided media consumers with "objective and unbiased information"?
Your repeated denials of the innocence of the Lacrosse players, accused of a crime which evidence shows never happened, is evidence of your bias.
"If the civil suit goes to trial, I will have an opportunity to prove myself innocent of 'solicitation.'"
So let's see what a court thinks of your proof.
So far you haven't proven anything. This is not surprising in view of all the unsubstantiated allegations you have made in your blog.
Kilgo said this in a comment on a previous j4n blog entry:
"
Would Kilgo's very own personal secretary
please print out and form a nicely bound
volume of the writings of Kilgo, and send
it to Kilgo's Duke Classmate, James Cooney.
Oh, wait. We need a title.
How about :
" Whores, Thieves and Liars"
How the Duke Lacrosse Mafia Beat the Rap
in the Notorious Duke Sex Scandal.
If kilgo really did know all he claims to know about the Duke rape case, he would have already published a book with such a title. He has not done so.
"So far you haven't proven anything. This is not surprising in view of all the unsubstantiated allegations you have made in your blog."
I should have said, this is not surprising in view of all the unsubstantiated allegations you have presented as facts.
You have repeatedly cited Ms. Mangum's identification of her attackers as justification for Mr. Nifong's prosecution of them. You have never mentioned:
1) The lineup procedure was improperly conducted;
2) Two of the people she identified with "100% certainty" could show with 100% certainty they were not present at the scene of the alleged crime at the time the crime allegedly happened.
3) She identified her assailant as a man with a mustache. The man who was indicted, David Evans, never had a mustache.
So, I ask again, when have you ever provided the media consumers with objective, unbiased information?
"I never claimed that the Carpetbaggers were responsible for the recent stabbing incident that led to Ms. Mangum's arrest. Again, I have no objective and unbiased information about the incident."
Sidney, you have attributed just about all the events concerning Ms. Mangum to this "carpetbagger jihad".
Now, it seems you are having real problems trying to explain Ms. Mangum's latest problem to this jihad. That is the opinion I am expressing.
Are you trying to back down from your claims of a carpetbagger jihad?
Well, now that Kilgo
has an Archivist,
Personal Secretary,
and a New Editor,
all he needs is an Agent.
Standard Industry Commission.
Please submit your resume
here at Nifong's Blog.
"I can furthermore express my belief that a Durham police officer set clothes ablaze in the bathtub."
Do you think you can convict any Durham Police officer of attempted arson on that basis?
You seem to think the Lacrosse players should have been convicted of rape on the basis of your opinion. This, yet, is another example of your megalomania.
Kilgo, when are you going to reveal what you know about the Duke rape case. You have received multiple requests to do so. So far all you have revealed is that you do not know anything.
Torpedoed.
Dead in the Water
and Sinking Fast.
When will the
Lacrosse Civil Suits
squirm into their Life Rafts ?
"I find extremely outrageous is the media's use of his illegitimate statement as a basis for misleading the public by stating that they are innocent and exonerated."
Why so you call it "misleading" to tell the public that the Lacrosse players are innocent and exonerated.
They were accused of a crime. Evidence showed that crime never happened, that DA Mike Nifong had no justification for prosecuting them. Since no crime happened they could not have been guilty of anything. Since they had committed no crime they WERE innocent. Since they WERE innocent of the charges brought against them, they were exonerated.
Your statement is further evidence of your belief that the Lacrosse players were guilty of raping Crystal Mangum.
Kilgo, when are you going to reveal what you know about the Duke rape case. You have received multiple requests to do so. So far all you continue to reveal is that you do not know anything.
Kilgo, the presiding judge does not think the Lawsuits are dead in the water.
Kilgo, you seem to be admitting that no legitimate literary agent would take seriously your claims of extensive knowledge about the Duke Rape case.
Sidney, another example of you megalomania is your belief that Mr. Nifong will be exonerated on the basis of your unsubstantiated allegations about the rape case.
I express the opinion, you are really unaware that you are required to prove your charges of bias against Duke University, not simply make them.
Kilgo, you have never noticed all the ways Mr. Nifong has tried to squirm out of having to answer the lawsuits.
For that matter, both Durham and Duke have tried to squirm out of having to answer the charges.
David Evans, whom you have accused of shaving off an "incriminating mustache' stood up in public and said the charges brought against him and his teammates were false. Evidence has proven them correct.
This has been said before. Mike Nifong told the people at NCCU that his presence at their meeting meant the case was not going away.
I bet Mr. Nifong now really wishes the case had gone away.
Or maybe he is wishing the case had gone HIS way.
Kilgo, we are waiting for your next meaningless unsupported allegation, the next manifestation that you know nothing.
"Again, I have no objective and unbiased information about the incident[Ms. Mangum's latest arrest]".
Sidney, you have no objective unbiased information about anything concerning Ms. Mangum or the Duke Rape Case.
You do not try to obtain unbiased information. You try to wish it away.
Kilgo, we are waiting for your next meaningless unsupported allegation, the next manifestation that you know nothing.
We are very Sorry.
We no longer break-in
Rookie Lacrosse Shills.
Please consult our Archivist.
Kilfgo, if you did really knoe what you claim to know, you dould have gone to Nifong's, Durham's and Duke's attorneys and blown the Lacrosse lawsuits out of the water years ago. You did not do so.
You cuold have gone in 2007 and prevented their settlement with the Duke defendants. You did not do so.
Kilgo said:
"We are very Sorry.
We no longer break-in
Rookie Lacrosse Shills."
In other words, Kilgo knows nothing and thinks he can conceal what a transparent, obvious fool he is.
Kilfgo, if you did really know what you claim to know, you could have gone to Nifong's, Durham's and Duke's attorneys and blown the Lacrosse lawsuits out of the water years ago. You did not do so.
You cuold have gone to Duke in 2007 and prevented their settlement with the Duke defendants. You did not do so.
Kilgo, why do you not go now to Nifong's, Durham's, and Duke's attorneys and reveal what you know?
If you really did know what you claim to know, you could end the lawsuits once and for all.
Hey, Sergeant Schultz, aka Kilgo,
Why hasn't Sidney Harr called upon you to reveal what you know.
Prabably, like us rookie Lacrosse trolls, Sidney knows you know nothing.
Hey Sidney
Why haven't you called upon Sgt. Schultz, aka Kilgo, to reveal what he knows?
If Kilgo really does know what he knows, he could shut down this alleged carpetbagger jihad onc and for all.
Sidney, Mr. Nifong, the City of Durham, and Duke University, unlike David Evans, has neve stood up in public and denied the charges filed against them. Instead, they have tried via technicalities, to have the suits dismissed.
Kilgo, via your last dodge, you are admitting you know nothing.
I agree with a statemant a Duke co-ed said at the time-"None of those guys would want to have sex with that ugly hooker.These guys could get any girl they wanted,they would never have to stoop that low."
Why is blogger eating my comments?
Kilgo, as before, via your last comment you announce you are slinking away from the fray.
RUN KILGO RUN
DUCK KILGO DUCK
----------------------((((((
QUACK
QUACK
QUACK
----------------------((((((
Silly chicken killy
knows he's f----d
Silly chicken killy
is quacking up
Decompensate, Kilgo, decompensate.
Sidney, according to Ballantine's Law Dictionary: Legal Assistant Edition, the definition of probable cause is:
"[A] reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".
What circumstances justified Mr. Nifong's belief that a crime had happened? The crime which was alleged was a crime in which the perpetrators could not have avoided leaving evidence. No evidence was found at the crime scene.
That Mr. Nifong believed the Lacrosse team were a group of "Hooligans" is a bias, not a reason for believing that some of them had perpetrated a crime.
----------------------((((((
QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
----------------------((((((
Anonymous said...
"'Because Professor Coleman is my friend, I would not want him to publicly support my complaint against his employer.'
Why not?
I had a dispute with a previous employer, a very bitter dispute in which my superior attempted to coerce me into accepting responsibility for an error which was my superior's fault. A number of my felow employees supported me.
A law professor who will not stand up for right out of rear of his/her employer is one thing. A law professor who will not support a frivolous lawsuit is another
How would you have felt if one of your fellow employees who went up against your supervior was retaliated against or fired? I'm sure you would not want that. As much as I would like to have support of others, I would not want it at risk to their well being.
With regards to "frivolous," I would not call issues pertaining to First Amendment Rights and discrimination frivolous.
----------------------((((((
Whoopee !
Another Day
Another Dollar !
Let's Play
Stump the Lacrosse Lover(s).
----------------------((((((
Anonymous said...
"'If the civil suit goes to trial, I will have an opportunity to prove myself innocent of 'solicitation.' '
So let's see what a court thinks of your proof.
So far you haven't proven anything. This is not surprising in view of all the unsubstantiated allegations you have made in your blog."
The proof is evident in my website, under Investigative Reports. There is an audio recording where the Security guard threatens me repeatedly with arrest, where the Security guard states that he was told to remove me from the property, and where he is unable to give an explanation as to why he was asked to remove me from campus.
Furthermore there are letters in which the spokesman for Duke University stated that Duke police took action against me for handing out my business card and asking people to visit my website. Would you call handing out a business card "solicitation?" Would you call inviting someone to visit your website "solicitation?" I don't think so.
Anonymous said...
"'I never claimed that the Carpetbaggers were responsible for the recent stabbing incident that led to Ms. Mangum's arrest. Again, I have no objective and unbiased information about the incident.'
Sidney, you have attributed just about all the events concerning Ms. Mangum to this 'carpetbagger jihad'.
Now, it seems you are having real problems trying to explain Ms. Mangum's latest problem to this jihad. That is the opinion I am expressing.
Are you trying to back down from your claims of a carpetbagger jihad?"
No, the Carpetbagger Jihad is real, and its agenda has successfully poisoned the mindless public attitude against Mike Nifong, his supporters, and anyone considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case. The anti-Mangum sentiment, I am sure, will stain the court's proceedings against her. She most definitely deserves a change of venue, in my opinion.
"Would you call handing out a business card "solicitation?" Would you call inviting someone to visit your website "solicitation?" I don't think so."
YES...Sid. YES. THAT IS SOLICITATION. One of the stated purposes of your website is the reinstatement of Mike Nifong's license to practice law. Sid - That is a SERVICE you are attempting to provide to Mr. Nifong. This service you are attempting to provide is IN NO WAY related to Duke or it's educational mission.
The thing is, Sid, you can legitimately hand out your business cards and website info on Duke campus. Simply ensure that you are sponsored by a student organization, stay with a member of that student organization while you're on campus, and abide by all local, state, and federal laws as well as university policies.
My hope is that this goes well for you, Sid -- honestly. Right now, the best I can see is that a judge just dismisses this case. I can see this being declared a frivolous lawsuit and fines/sactions being declared.
I'm not surprised you couldn't find a lawyer to submit this -- filing a claim that is ultimately deemed frivolous can be highly damaging to the attorney so filing.
"the Carpetbagger Jihad is real..."
You don't know the definition of either "carpetbagger" or "jihad".
I'll leave you with this (from Pierre Tristam) --
"jihad" is considered to be every Muslim's duty--be it the struggle to improve society, preventing the exploitation of the poor or vulnerable, or improving oneself before the Day of Judgment.
----------------------((((((
QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
QUACK QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
----------------------((((((
----------------------((((((
QUACK QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
----------------------((((((
Thank you for confirming that, Kilgo, but I'm pretty sure everyone was already aware.
"She[Crystal Mangum} most definitely deserves a change of venue, in my opinion."
Why did the accused Lacrosse players not deserve a change of venue in view of Mr. Nifong's multiple public inflammatory guilt prsuming statements about the Laceosse team?
"The anti-Mangum sentiment, I am sure, will stain the court's proceedings against her."
I bet you think all the anti Mangum sentiment is what made her take up that knife.
"I agree with a statemant a Duke co-ed said at the time-'None of those guys would want to have sex with that ugly hooker.These guys could get any girl they wanted,they would never have to stoop that low.'"
I believe Mr. Nigong based his belief that the Lacrosse players used condoms on his opinion that an exotic dancer would not be one's ideal choice for a sex partner.
Why did that opinion not dissuade him from believing that the Lacrosse players would use an exotic dancer as a sex partner?
Kilgo, since, as you repeatedly admit, no evidence was found at the "crime" scene, how do you know it actually was a crime scene?
How come no evidence was ever recovered from the rape kit?
"the Carpetbagger Jihad is real..."
You have asserted. Let's see if you can prove.
If you think your evidence that Duke violated your civil rights is as strong as your evidence of the "carpetbagger jihad", then, Sidney, you have big problems.
Sidney, what you or I or any other individual calls solicitation is not relevant. What is relevant is how and why Duke defined your actions as soliciting.
If the court decides after hearing you and Duke that you did violate Duke's solicitation policy, you will lose your case.
I believe, in that scenario you will cry, How can you call that solicitation? And the court will answer, Read the verdict.
"Well, just don't sit there
with those Dumb Looks on your faces.
Can't any of the Lacrosse Lovers
help Sidney out here?
What in the World does this have
to do with Sidney's Plight with Duke Law School?"
The answer, kilgo is absolutely nothing. Everett Robinson was a distinguished lawyer, honored on several occasions for his service(unlike Mike Nifong whose only "honor is having his name become a synonym for deliberate frame-up).
Sidney is trying to pass Mr. Nifong off as a model of an Everett Robinson type lawyer. By his own words and actions, Mr. Nifong has demonstrated he is not.
Kilgo knows nothing.
"With regards to 'frivolous,' I would not call issues pertaining to First Amendment Rights and discrimination frivolous."
Sidney, you have called Mr. Nifong's blatant disregard of Defendants" constitutional rights mild attempts to get witnesses to come forward. How can you call blatant disregard of the right to be presumed innocent, the right to counsel, the right to a fair trial "mild".
Why do you attempt to deny Mr. Cooper the right to express his opinions, that no crime was perpetrated against Ms.Mangum, that those accused of said alleged crime are innocent?
"No, the Carpetbagger Jihad is real, and its agenda has successfully poisoned the mindless public attitude against Mike Nifong, his supporters, and anyone considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case."
Sidney, who are those powers that be and specify how they were co-opted.
"Would you call handing out a business card "solicitation?" Would you call inviting someone to visit your website 'solicitation?'"
Sidney, why would you not call it solicitation?
The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the court.
You have the burden of proof. Duke's policy regarding on campus solicitation is public. What you did you have admitted. YOU have to convince the court by a preponderance of the evidence that what you did was not a violation od Duke's policy.
Your opinion of tour own grandeur is not evidence.
----------------------((((((
QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
QUACK QUACK
QUACK QUACK
deliberate frame-up).
QUACK QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
QUACK QUACK
deliberate frame-up).
----------------------((((((
QUACK QUACK
QUACK QUACK
----------------------((((((
QUACK QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
deliberate frame-up).
QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
deliberate frame-up).
----------------------((((((
Anonymous said...
"My hope is that this goes well for you, Sid -- honestly. Right now, the best I can see is that a judge just dismisses this case. I can see this being declared a frivolous lawsuit and fines/sactions being declared.
I'm not surprised you couldn't find a lawyer to submit this -- filing a claim that is ultimately deemed frivolous can be highly damaging to the attorney so filing."
I did not seek an attorney to represent me because I know that I could count on an attorney to take my money, but I could not count on one to act in my best interests. I am my best advocate, and I believe that I can represent myself well without a law degree.
Anonymous said...
"Sidney, what you or I or any other individual calls solicitation is not relevant. What is relevant is how and why Duke defined your actions as soliciting.
If the court decides after hearing you and Duke that you did violate Duke's solicitation policy, you will lose your case.
I believe, in that scenario you will cry, How can you call that solicitation? And the court will answer, Read the verdict."
In other words, anyone who hands out a business card should be kicked off campus and threatened with arrest? How many people do you believe have been kicked off the Duke campus for handing out a business card? Here's a clue...Zilch!
"How many people do you believe have been kicked off the Duke campus for handing out a business card? Here's a clue...Zilch!"
So you admit you were not arrested.
According to you, you were instructed to cease and desist and you did not do so. How many people have ever done that.
kilgo, as you admit, there was no evidence at the crime scene and it was a frame up. So how could there be a crime scene in the first place?
"I am my best advocate, and I believe that I can represent myself well without a law degree."
In other words, no reputable attorney would take your case.
"In other words, anyone who hands out a business card should be kicked off campus and threatened with arrest?"
Those are your words, Sidney. That is not an issue.
The issue is whether or not you were violating Duke's solicitation policy. If Duke can show by a preponderance, you lose.
It is not you who decides whether or not you violated Duke's solicitation policy. If you believe you do, you are saying you have the right to make the law rather than obey it.
No wonder you keep writing it is misleading and correct the Lacrosse players are innocent, even though they committed no crime.
"How many people do you believe have been kicked off the Duke campus for handing out a business card? Here's a clue...Zilch!"
Again, Sidney, the issue is whether or not you violated Duke's policy on solicitation. You have already decided for yourself you did not.Unfortunately for you, that is not enough to make tour case.
Silly Killy is really trying to DUCK the issues.
Does anyone think kilgo is making any sense. Does he really think he has regained any of his nonexixtent credibility?
Sidney, do you really think kilgo's quackery helps your cause?
"Had a politician aggressively become involved in seeing that justice was served, I believe there would have been a decent chance that the issue could have been amicably and expeditiously settled."
Roy Cooper ran for elected office and therefore is a politician. Mr. Cooper stepped in and terminated Mike Nifong's wrongful prosecution of the Lacrosse players. We know what Sidney thinks of that. Sidney is a bit of a hypocrite.
Incidentally, Mr. Cooper stepped in at Mr. Nifong's request, not Mrs. Evans'. If you knew anything about the law, you would know Mr. Cooper could not have stepped in unless requested by Mr. Nifong.
----------------------((((((
wrongful prosecution
QUACK
QUACK
QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
QUACK
QUACK
QUACK
deliberate frame-up.
QUACK
QUACK
QUACK
Kilgo knows nothing.
QUACK
QUACK
QUACK
No evidence was found at the crime scene.
QUACK
QUACK
QUACK
deliberate frame-up.
QUACK
QUACK
QUACK
----------------------((((((
Kilgo again demonstrates he knows nothing.
What in the World does this have to do with Sidney's Plight with Duke Law School?
Robinson Everett was a Nifong supporter and enabler. The decision to establish a professorship in Everett's name undercuts Sidney's claim that Duke discriminates against Nifong supporters.
No other prosecutor in the history of the world has ever made such a proclamation about defendants.
Sidney,
This statement is false.
Comments on the January 10, 2010 thread, "Responding to blog commenters…" contained links to declarations of "innocence" made by prosecutors prior to court hearings. These prosecutors include: McGrath, Watkins, Petro and Bruning. Petro made his proclamation over the objections of the DA responsible for prosecuting the case. You responded to these comments and supported Petro's proclamation of innocence.
I ask that you practice "restorative justice" with this demonstrably false statement.
1. Admit responsibility for your actions.
2. Apologize to your victims (i.e., your readers).
3. Compensate your victims for their losses. Review all of your posts and comments and correct this error wherever it appears. Explain how you made this mistake, particularly after a prior correction.
4. Take steps to prevent a recurrence of this offense. Undertake prior research to support your statements.
Sidney,
I encourage you to be careful with your statements. You will lose credibility if you are found to make false statements constantly. Your credibility may be important if your lawsuit proceeds. Few of your readers will vouch for your accuracy.
.
Will Wonders Never Cease !
We have a Winner !
Yes indeed, the distinguished
Duke Law Professor
O. Robinson Everett,
was a long-time mentor
and role-model for
the Unjustly Railroaded
District Attorney
Mike Nifong.
Everett, God Bless His Soul,
served on the Committee to Elect Nifong
and was a stalwart defender
of the D.A.'s justifiable indictment
with Probable Cause,
of our dear sweet "innocent"
party boys.
Perhaps Duke only discriminates
against Living Nifong Supporters?
.
If that is true, Kilgo, that is indeed sad, since since Mr. Nifong ended up as the only DA in NC history ever to be disbarred, a distinction which he labored so mightily to deserve.
Why hasn't Sdney mentioned this?
Why did Everett never support Mr. Nifong during the disbarment proceedings?
Why have you never revealed what you allege you know about the Duke rape case.
Kilgo, your credibility is less than zero.
So, waddle back to your duck pond and start quacking.
"No other prosecutor in the history of the world has ever made such a proclamation about defendants."
Mr. Nifong, himself, years prior to the Duke case, dismissed rape charges against a suspect because DNA tests showed the suspect did not do it.
It would seem Mr. Everett distanced himself from Mr. Nifong once it became obvious(to everyone but Kilgo and Sidney) that Mr. Nifong was carrying on a wrongful prosecution.
Mr. Everett's endorsement of Mr. Nifong came at a time before Mr. Nifong's misconduct became obvious. As Michael Gaynor stated, he then had a personal interest in making Mr. Nifong look respectable.
Mr. Everett's support for Mr. Nifong was only a discussion of whether or not the non-Lacrosse DNA found on Ms. Mangum cuold have been suppressed.
As Mr. Gaynor points out, it was up to a court whether or not that evidence should have been suppressed. Mr. Nifong did not ask the court to suppress the evidence. Mr. Nifong made the decision himself to suppress the evidence.
Mr. Everett WAS NOT an active supporter of Mr. Nifong. He was an enabler.
Did Mr. Everett ever speak out about Mr. Nifong's disbarnent. Sidney, Kilgo, can you cite any examples?
Professor Everet suggested Mr. Nifong administer a lie detector test to Ms. Mangum. Mr. Nifong did not do so.
Hey Kilgo, have you gotten your subpoena yet?
...
Looks like it could be a very busy day
for the Lacrosse Lovers' campaign of
Lies, Fraud and Deceit.
Waauuughhh !!!!
....
Anonymous said...
"'How many people do you believe have been kicked off the Duke campus for handing out a business card? Here's a clue...Zilch!'
So you admit you were not arrested.
According to you, you were instructed to cease and desist and you did not do so. How many people have ever done that."
Yes, I was not arrested, but the only reason I was not was because I fortuitously flagged down Duke Law Professor James Coleman, who vigorously interceded on my behalf. Had he not, I might still be in jail on trumped up charges.
As far as ceasing and desisting, I was never told to cease and desist from handing out business cards or inviting people to visit my website. That was the only flimsy excuse Duke could come up with after I pressured them for a reason for my mistreatment on their campus.
Anonymous said...
"'I am my best advocate, and I believe that I can represent myself well without a law degree.'
In other words, no reputable attorney would take your case."
I did not even attempt to find an attorney. As stated earlier, I know that I could be sure that an attorney would take my money to represent me, but there would be no assurance that the attorney would act in my best interests.
Anonymous said...
"'the Carpetbagger Jihad is real...'
You have asserted. Let's see if you can prove.
If you think your evidence that Duke violated your civil rights is as strong as your evidence of the 'carpetbagger jihad', then, Sidney, you have big problems."
It's not just me. We all have big problems with regards to justice, only I realize it and you apparently don't. This issue has to do with freedom of speech, and the freedom to have opinions, beliefs, and thoughts that might be at variance with those in power. In my opinion, Duke believed that it could arrest me without cause because of its money and power and media influence. The forefathers did not have this in mind when they drafted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution centuries ago.
Harr Supporter said...
"What in the World does this have to do with Sidney's Plight with Duke Law School?
Robinson Everett was a Nifong supporter and enabler. The decision to establish a professorship in Everett's name undercuts Sidney's claim that Duke discriminates against Nifong supporters."
I had the great privilege of meeting Professor Everett years ago, and visited with him several times to discuss what I felt to be Mr. Nifong's selective and unjust disbarment. We did agree, in principle, that Mr. Nifong was unfairly treated.
Truth be told, there are many professors at Duke University who are supportive of Mr. Nifong, but to outwardly do so would not be beneficial career-wise. I respect those who told me off the record of their support for Mr. Nifong, and I realize the unnecessary jeopardy in which they would place themselves if they stated so publicly.
Mr. Nifong's unjust treatment is obvious, and that is why the topic is taboo not only at Duke Law Schools, but at law schools throughout the state. Even the mainstream media is wary of entering into a debate about the issue.
"This issue has to do with freedom of speech..."
Yet you would deny AG Cooper the freedom to express his opinion on the innocence of the Lacrosse defendants just because that opinion displeases you.
Can we spell hypocrisy, boys and girls?
Since the Lacrosse players committed no crime, they are, as a matter of FACT innocent.
Anonymous said...
"'No other prosecutor in the history of the world has ever made such a proclamation about defendants.'
Mr. Nifong, himself, years prior to the Duke case, dismissed rape charges against a suspect because DNA tests showed the suspect did not do it."
Yes, and that is the appropriate move to make. But, did he proclaim that the defendant was "innocent"? I had no problem with Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissing the charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants, but where he took it a step further was when he proclaimed them "innocent." And he did so only at the urgings and applied pressure of Brad Bannon, Joseph B. Cheshire V's underling.
"We did agree, in principle, that Mr. Nifong was unfairly treated."
That would be kind of hard for you to prove, since you have not quoted any statement of Professor Everett to that effect, and you have not made that assertion until Professor Everett's involvement with Mr. Nifong was never mentioned in your blog until now.
Anonymous said...
"'This issue has to do with freedom of speech...'
Yet you would deny AG Cooper the freedom to express his opinion on the innocence of the Lacrosse defendants just because that opinion displeases you.
Can we spell hypocrisy, boys and girls?
Since the Lacrosse players committed no crime, they are, as a matter of FACT innocent."
So, under-aged drinking is not a crime?
"We all have big problems with regards to justice, only I realize it and you apparently don't."
Your big problem with justice is that you refuse to acknowledge that three men who committed no crime are innocent.
"So, under-aged drinking is not a crime?"
The Lacrosse players were never charged with underaged drinking. They were charged with raping Crystal Mangum.
Evidence, which Mr. Nifong was unwilling to show to the court, showed no crime had been committed. Yet you believe they are guilty, even if you have never specifically said that in your blog.
That is your biggest problem with the Justice system.
"I had no problem with Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissing the charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants, but where he took it a step further was when he proclaimed them "innocent." And he did so only at the urgings and applied pressure of Brad Bannon, Joseph B. Cheshire V's underling."
Sidney, you had a problem with Mr. Cooper stating he believed they were innocent because you believed then and believe now they are guilty.
They did not commit the crime with which they were charged. Said crime, as was shown by the evidence, never happened. Therefore, it was a matter of fact, not proclamation, that they were innocent.
Cite, if you can, any statement by Professor Everett, that it was wrong for Mr. Cooper to express his opinion, which was based on a thorough review of the case.
"Yes, and that is the appropriate move to make. But, did he proclaim that the defendant was 'innocent'?"
And if the evidence showed that someone other than the accused had perpetrated the crime, what would the accused be other than innocent?
In the Lacrosse case, the three defendants were accused of a crime which was shown by evidence, did not happen. What else could they be but innocent?
I remind you, they were charged with first degree rape, not underaged drinking. Charging them with underage drinking would never have gotten Mr. Nifong elected.
"Mr. Nifong's unjust treatment is obvious, and that is why the topic is taboo not only at Duke Law Schools, but at law schools throughout the state. Even the mainstream media is wary of entering into a debate about the issue."
Mr. Nifong's misconduct is what is obvious, which the mainstream media do not debate it.
I doubt that any Law School in the country ignores the Duke case. They probably all teach it as an example of how a DA should not act.
"I respect those who told me off the record of their support for Mr. Nifong, and I realize the unnecessary jeopardy in which they would place themselves if they stated so publicly."
Sidney, you are trying to play a sith mind trick on your readers. If Mr. Nifong had any such extensive support in the legal community, they would have expressed it(just as, if Ms. Mangum could make a case she had been raped, every trial lawyer in the country would have been urging her to file a civil suit - remember Willy Gary).
You are making an assertion and then declining to prove it. Thereby you are simply making an assertion.
"I did not even attempt to find an attorney. As stated earlier, I know that I could be sure that an attorney would take my money to represent me, but there would be no assurance that the attorney would act in my best interests."
Ergo, you admit, when you filed your suit, no reputable attorney would take your case.
Sidney, when you lose your case, are you going to appeal on the ground that you had inadequate representation?
"Yes, I was not arrested, but the only reason I was not was because I fortuitously flagged down Duke Law Professor James Coleman, who vigorously interceded on my behalf."
If Professor Coleman ws truly your friend, why did you have to flag him down?
Will Professor Coleman testify inyour behalf
"I had no problem with Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissing the charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants..."
Sidney, in your blog you have revealed you have plenty of heartburn over Mr. Cooper's dismissal of the charges. In announcing the dismissal, he stated there was no evidence to corroborate the charges, no witnesses to corroborate the charges. Did you miss that part?
"The forefathers did not have this in mind when they drafted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution centuries ago."
Did those forefathers have it in mind that a District Attorney would charge three innocent men with a crime when he had no evidence to believe said crime had happened?
Via his last comment, Kilgo admits again he knows nothing about the Duke case. He just shows how much he hates the Lacrosse players.
Kilgo, what venom are you going to spew the next time you emerge from your duck pond?
"Did those forefathers have it in mind that a District Attorney would charge three innocent men with a crime when he had no evidence to believe said crime had happened?"
Maybe they did. That is why our system of justice has safeguards built in to prevent such a thing. Admittedly, in many cases they do not work. In the Duke case, Mr. Nifong's misconduct was so obvious the safeguards did kick in, long before Mrs. Evans ever made her statement to 60 Minutes.
Professor Everett also advocated for a speedy trial. That never happened. Mr. Nifong was in no hurry to take the case to trial. That is evident from the fact that waited for nine months to interview the complaining witness,the alleged victim of the alleged crime.
Kilgo, again shot down in flames.
"How would you have felt if one of your fellow employees who went up against your supervior(sic) was retaliated against or fired?"
Sidney, some of my fellow employees did go against my superior and were fired. A couple fought back, like I did, and were exonerated.
As for the others, I wondered why they did not have the gumption to fight back.
This Superior of mine was relieved of his duties after I fought back.
Sidney, if you were really concerned about underage drinking, you would have been blogging about that, not the exoneration of the Lacrosse players of the rape charge filed against them.
If underage drinking were probable cause to believe a rape had happened, the majority of college students, at one point in their lives, would have been charged with rape.
...
The Great Kilgo
is yet again
V I N D I C A T E D ! !
The Great Kilgo
Reveals the TRUTH
of the Carpetbagger Extortion.
All Hail The Great Kilgo,
the delusional moron troll
and Durham Idiot
WHO KNOWS NOTHING.
...
I have heard that there are some (rich) people who want a particular blog site to fail. They will hire a troll to make ridiculous and offensive comments, and pay him/her, not for the comments he/she makes, but rather for the replies that he/she elicits. Other posters on the site believe that they are furthering the discussion, but in fact they are only sending money to the troll.
That's why I frequently say, "Don't feed the troll!"
The only truth Kilgo has revealed is he can not back up the claims he makes either about himself or about the Lacrosse case.
"I respect those who told me off the record of their support for Mr. Nifong, and I realize the unnecessary jeopardy in which they would place themselves if they stated so publicly."
In other words you respect no one.
"That's why I frequently say, 'Don't feed the troll!'"
If I can induce Sidney to actually pay silly killy to show the world what a transparent phony he is, I will continue.
kilgo, are you willing to go to the attorneys for Duke, Mike Nifong and Durham and testify under oath about what you know?
Hanna Maschler, please clarify.
Are you saying that someone who s trying to discredit Sidney Harr has hired kilgo to post his comments in order to induce others to post comments which discredit Sidney Harr?
You seem to be saying, let's try not to discredit Sidney Harr.
If so, I would say Sidney has already discredited himself via his unverified allegations, via his disbelief n the innocence of the Lacrosse defendants, via his hypocrisy on the issue of civil rights.
To clarify Hanna's message:
Sidney'a a nice fellow. We like this blog site. Unfortunately someone seems to be trying to discredit the blog site, and apparently does this by getting trolls to upset the rest of us. We should not pay attention to such people.
----------------------((((((
----------------------((((((
----------------------((((((
Waauughh ! ! !
----------------------((((((
----------------------((((((
----------------------((((((
The great kilgo again reveals he knows nothing
Mr. Everett's Duke biography says nothing about his support of Mike Nifong. Was he, like Nancy Grace, Wendy Murphy, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Willy Gary before him, distancing himself from the Crystal Mangum false rape allegation.
Has the great kilgo forgotten how to quack? It looks like he is unable to respond to any of the points which have been made.
to Guiowen:
Someone who is trying to paint innocent men as guilty is not a nice guy.
I say again, Sidney himself has discredited his own blog.
Sidney,
When are you going to practice restorative justice? You promised to do so quickly.
You owe restorative justice on the following:
Misleading headline proclaiming Crystal's innocence.
False statement that no prosecutor has ever proclaimed the innocence of a defendant.
We are waiting.
.
------------------------------------(((((())
.
WTVD is reporting that Crystal Mangum's boyfriend was taken off life support.
Perhaps the severity of his injuries has prevented Sidney from commenting.
Man Mangum is accused of stabbing dies.
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_st
ory/12779117/article-Man-Mangum-is-
accused-of-stabbing-dies?instance=breaking_news
Sid,
You better start planning Crystal's defense. She may be facing a murder charge.
Stop thinking only about yourself and your lawsuit.
"Barbaric treatment"? Really? Grow up.
How's Crystal doin'?
I would guess CGM is facing a second-degree murder charge.
She shold have been put away last year, but beat the system. I would guess she knows a lot of people who would prefer shenot talk.
Those who helped her beat the system (and that includes the entire j4n team) bear some responsibility here.
Sidney, Kilgo, what are your comments?
Sidney, think about this. You and your j4n gangsters, because of your involvement in glossing over Ms. Mangum's past history of violent and sociopathic behavior, might get you all named as defendants in a wrongful death suit.
Bitch gon' bees claimin' crayzee now
This is nothing to gloat over. It is still something to think about, whether or not the City of Durham, the Durham Police Department, the State of North Carolina will face litigation over this death, charges of negligence for not taking action to deal with Ms. Mangum appropriately.
Sydney, how does it feel to have blood on your hands?
Justice58:
If you are out there, do you have any comments?
I have just come from reading a number of comments on Liestoppers.
I think a civil suit for wrongful death will be the only way any one in Durham will be held accountable.
Can there ever be any restorative justice for Mr. Daye?
Is Justice58, like Nancy Grace, Wendy Murphy, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Willy Gary and probably Robinson Everett before her, trying to distance herself from Ms. Mangum's false rape allegations?
Everyone, please. Ms. Mangum IS innocent until proven guilty. Let's give her the benefit that Sid and his gang still does not give Collin, David or Reade.
Interesting thought, Sid. If the prosecutor in Ms. Mangums's current case behaves in a manner exactly as Mike Nifong did in the Duke Lacrosse case, will you vilify the prosecutor or Ms. Mangum?
Restorative Justice said...
"Sidney,
I encourage you to be careful with your statements. You will lose credibility if you are found to make false statements constantly. Your credibility may be important if your lawsuit proceeds. Few of your readers will vouch for your accuracy."
I consider myself to be careful with the accuracy of my statements. If you can refer to the statements you feel to be false I will address them. Thanks.
Anonymous said...
"No other prosecutor in the history of the world has ever made such a proclamation about defendants.
Sidney,
This statement is false.
Comments on the January 10, 2010 thread, 'Responding to blog commenters…' contained links to declarations of 'innocence' made by prosecutors prior to court hearings. These prosecutors include: McGrath, Watkins, Petro and Bruning. Petro made his proclamation over the objections of the DA responsible for prosecuting the case. You responded to these comments and supported Petro's proclamation of innocence.
I ask that you practice 'restorative justice' with this demonstrably false statement.
1. Admit responsibility for your actions.
2. Apologize to your victims (i.e., your readers).
3. Compensate your victims for their losses. Review all of your posts and comments and correct this error wherever it appears. Explain how you made this mistake, particularly after a prior correction.
4. Take steps to prevent a recurrence of this offense. Undertake prior research to support your statements."
I reviewed my blog of January 10, 2010, and I stand by my statements. The case in which Attorney General McGrath stated the defendant was "innocent" was entirely different than circumstances surrounding the Duke Lacrosse case. First of all, the defendant in the McGrath case had already been found guilty by a jury, but McGrath, with exculpatory DNA, requested for a judge to proclaim the defendant "innocent." The media did not run with the story and say, McGrath proclaims the defendant "innocent." Nor did the media say, "the innocent defendant" or "the exonerated defendant" based solely on McGrath's statement. The media would wait until the judge in the case proclaimed him "innocent" before doing that. Not so in the Duke Lacrosse case. The media jumped on the opportunity to declare the boys "innocent" based solely on the April 11, 2007 Promulgation by Cooper.
Furthermore, in the Duke Lacrosse case, the trial had not even commenced, and the Attorney General's options were to proceed with the case to trial or to dismiss them. Cooper chose to do the latter, but went the extra step to proclaim the defendants "innocent." In such a similar situation, no attorney general, to my knowledge, has proclaimed a defendant to be "innocent."
Hanna Maschler said...
"I have heard that there are some (rich) people who want a particular blog site to fail. They will hire a troll to make ridiculous and offensive comments, and pay him/her, not for the comments he/she makes, but rather for the replies that he/she elicits. Other posters on the site believe that they are furthering the discussion, but in fact they are only sending money to the troll.
That's why I frequently say, 'Don't feed the troll!'"
Interesting.
Thank you for the clarification.
Anonymous said...
"'Yes, I was not arrested, but the only reason I was not was because I fortuitously flagged down Duke Law Professor James Coleman, who vigorously interceded on my behalf.'
If Professor Coleman ws truly your friend, why did you have to flag him down?
Will Professor Coleman testify inyour behalf"
I had to flag him down because the interview with Justice Breyer had just ended and there were plenty of people and students in the lobby area milling around. By flagging, I meant waving my arms to get his attention. And although he was in a hurry to catch a plane, he did take time to listen to me and intercede on my behalf.
If you visit my website you can hear the actual conversation and follow it in a transcript. I'll provide an address below that you'll have to copy and paste.
http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB/irB4.htm
Harr Supporter said...
"WTVD is reporting that Crystal Mangum's boyfriend was taken off life support.
Perhaps the severity of his injuries has prevented Sidney from commenting."
The comment in this blog is the first I've heard of the death of the man Ms. Mangum is alleged to have stabbed. It is a very tragic situation for all involved.
Sidney, the evidence gathered in the Duke Lacrosse case, and Ms. Mangum's word is not evidence, indicated no crime had taken place. Mr. Nifong was aware of that evidence when he chose to proceed. I am referring to the SBI testing of the rape kit. Therefore, the people suspected of the crime could not have committed a crime.
In such a scenario, a reasonable, ethical prosecutor would not have proceeded. Mr. Nifong did.
Since the accused Lacrosse players committed no crime, they were as a matter of hard cold fact INNOCENT, regardless of what was said about them.
Incidentally, Mr. Nifong is not the only prosecutor who tried to prosecute an innocent man with little to no evidence. Tracey Cline, african american DA and Nifong protege, tried to convict Leon Brown of rape. After returning a not guilty verdict, the jury foreman told Ms. Cline in open court she had wasted the jury's time, that she had absolutely no proof of guilt to present.
Why have you never cited african american Tracey Cline as an unethical prosecutor for her attempt to proclaim an innocent man guilty?
Why do you defend Mr.Nifong's pre trial proclamations that some Lacrosse players were guilty of raping Ms. Mangum?
Look at what you are saying. It is wrong for the AG to say, after he has reviewed the case, that innocent men are innocent. But you defend Mr. Nifong for saying, before he had ever established a crime had happened that certain individuals are guilty.
I say again, even when evidence established no crime had happened, Mr. Nifong was trying to prove individuals from a certain group were guilty.
"By flagging, I meant waving my arms to get his attention."
If you were the victim of the horrible act which you describe, why was it necessary to wave your arms? If you had to attract attention to yourself, it is an admission that no one else noticed anything.
That kind of thing makes it hard for you to prove your case. Remember, you have to prove your assertion, not simply make it.
And you have no intrinsic right to have your complaint decided at trial, just as Ms. Mangum had no intrinsic right to have those she falsely accused go to trial. A judge may review your complaint and dismiss it before trial. Stew on that.
While doing that, stew on your own role in the death of Reginald Daye.
"Interesting.
Thank you for the clarification."
I say again, Sidney has already discredited himself, via his refusal to recognize the innocence of the Lacrosse defendants, via his diatribes against Roy Cooper for recognizing their innocence, for his attempts to portray Ms. Mangum as an innocent, persecuted victim. Before the Lacrosse case, Ms. Mangum showed herself capable of violence>
Sidney, you have said it was proper for Mr. Nifong to dismiss rape charges whom evidence showed did not commit the crime.
Evidence in the Lacrosse case showed that no crime had happened. So how was Mr. Nifong conforming to acceptable standards of behavior in filing charges against anyone. Ms. Mangum's word was not evidence.
I remind you again, the crime for which Mr. Nifong sought indictments against three Lacrosse players was described unequivocally as a crime in which evidence had been left.
Sidney, are you dodging the question, will Professor Coleman testify in your behalf? Do you plan to subpoena him?
Sidney, this is another attempt at a sith mind trick. You claim you have never proclaimed the guilt of the Lacrosse defendants. But you write that it is false and misleading to call them innocent and exonerated. You say it is inaccurate to call Ms. Mangum a false accuser. You have said that Reade Seligman and Cillin Finnerty were present at the crime - not the alleged crime but the crime.
You believe the Lacrosse defendants are guilty. You are carrying on a vendetta against them because you can not stand the FACT that they ARE innocent.
Sidney, remember, Jedi mind tricks, Sith mind tricks work when used by a great mind on those with not so great minds.
You are no great mind. Your readers are not lesser minds, except maybe for kilgo. They understand the Duke case and Mr. Nifing's misconduct far better than you do.
.
* --- V U L T U R E S -- *
*
"Furthermore, in the Duke Lacrosse case, the trial had not even commenced...".
Why should there have been a trial. There was no evidence of a crime. In a fair open court, Mr. Nifong could not have made his case. It is not unusual for a criminal case to be dismissed before going to trial because the DA could not have made a case. The DA's office, under Mr. Nifong's leadership, frequently dismissed rape charges without ever going to trial.
Did you want the case to go to trial in Durham because a Durham court would not have been fair?
Mr. Cheshire was willing to go trial in a venue other than Durham. A lot of people did not want that.
I opine it would be entirely fair and proper to try Ms. Mangum in a venue other than Durham. I wonder if Ms. Mangum's supporters would object to that because they could not influence the court in another venue.
I say this for the benefit of Ms. Marcella Chester, who no longer seems to be blogging on her misanthropic abyss to hope.
A lot of feminazis would argue that whenever a woman commits violence against the man, it must have been the man's fault, especially in cases of she said, he's dead.
That was the Mary Winkler case. That was what people tried to make of the Nancy Seaman case
Sidney, Kilgo the Great Troll and other associated trolls, I have returned briefly to say one thing.
I told you so.
Goodbye.
According to Liestoppers, one Michael Vann will be defending Ms. Mangum and Ms.Mangum will enter a Not Guilty Plea.
Liestoppers reports that The Friends of Crystal Mabgum have commented that Duke would not appropriately treat Mr. Daye because of the Duke rape case lawsuits, that Mr. Daye should have been treated elsewhere.
Now we have hints as to Ms. Mangum's defense - Duke killed Mr. Daye, not Ms. Mangum.
I would not be surprised if Mr. Vann tries to file a wrongful death sui on Ms. Mangum's behalf.
I would also not be surprised if Sidney were to claim the carpetbagger jihad orchestrated Mr. Daye's death.
Kilgo, let's here you squawk like a vulture.
A black racist jury in Durham will probably let the ugly prostitute get away with her crimes again even though all of her victims have been black with the exception of the lacrosse players.She is after all a civil rights hero like OJ Simpson and Rodney King.
Kilgo, what do you call people like yourself, who stridently called for the conviction and imprisonment of the innocent Lacrosse players simply because they were Caucasian?
Kilgo, what do you call people like yourself who a) make allegations about the Duke b)never back them up and c) then claims he has extensive intimate knowledge about the case which no one wants revealed.
I call that person a transparently phony racist blowhard.
Kilgo, what do you call a man who conducts a vicious personal vendetta against the Lacrosse players?
I call him Sidney Harr.
Kilgo, Sidney Harr also makes a lot of allegations he does not support and expects them to be accepted as true.
I say again, I wonder if Ms. Mangum's supporters will oppose a change of venue because that would eliminate their capability to influence the outcome of the trial.
Kilgo, I also call you a coward because you slink away and quack a bunch of ad hominem attacks whenever your phoniness is exposed.
"Hanna Maschler said...
"I have heard that there are some (rich) people who want a particular blog site to fail. They will hire a troll to make ridiculous and offensive comments...".
Why would anyone pay a troll to do such a thing when Sidney is making plenty of ridiculous and offensive comments on his own blog for free?
"I consider myself to be careful with the accuracy of my statements."
You have said it is false and misleading to call the Lacrosse defendants innocent and exonerated, even though they committed no crime.
You repeatedly talk about Ms. Mangum identifying her assailants with 100% certainty but never mention that the lineup procedure itself was improper, that two of the people she identified with 100% certainty were not present at the time of the alleged crime, that the third man indicted had no mustache after Ms. Mangum said she could be 100% sure of the id if he had had a mustache, that Ms. Mangum failed to identify any assailants in two previous lineup procedures, that Ms. Mangum identified at least one individual with 100% certainty as a party attendee even though he had not been at the party.
You call Mr. Nifong's inflammatory, unethical, right violating pre trial statements "mild" attempts to get witnesses to come forward.
You say Mr. Nifong never solicited perjured testimony even though he had Mr. Moez Elmostafa put on trial when Mr. Elmostafa refused to back down from supporting Reade Seligman.
You ignore the documented fact that Mr. Nifong tried to coerce members of the Lacrosse team to testify against team mates by threatening them with prosecution for aiding and abetting.
Your whole blog has been devoted to presenting a distorted, untrue picture of what happened in the Duke Lacrosse case.
Restorative justice for the family of Reginald Daye!
.
* - H Y E N A S - *
.
Kilgo = @sshole
Kilgo, let's hear your hyena laugh.
.
Man's death may add to Duke lacrosse accuser woes
By TOM BREEN , 04.14.11, 05:21 PM EDT
RALEIGH, N.C. -- The label "discredited Duke lacrosse accuser" has been attached to Crystal Mangum for nearly four years since North Carolina's top prosecutor determined she'd falsely accused three players of raping her at a party. When the accusations unraveled, it marked the beginning of a slide into erratic and violent behavior. Now, a boyfriend she's accused of stabbing has died - plunging her story to a new low.
Mangum has been jailed on an assault charge since the April 3 argument that ended with the stabbing of Reginald Daye, but police say the man's death on Wednesday could bring more serious charges
Friends say Mangum has never recovered from the stigma brought by the Duke lacrosse case, which still touches raw nerves in Durham. Unable to find steady work because of her notoriety, Mangum has been involved in a string of unhappy relationships that she hoped would provide stability for her children, they say.
A spotlight has been on Mangum, 32, since she said she was raped at a 2006 party where she was working as a stripper. A year later, the state attorney general concluded there was no credible evidence of an attack and that the three accused men were innocent.
"I've talked to her time and time again about trying to move on from the Duke thing and trying to get her life in order, and every time she takes steps toward that, a boyfriend thing comes up," said Vincent Clark, who befriended her at the time of the rape accusations and went on to co-author her self-published memoir, "The Last Dance for Grace."
"She's desperately looking for a man to help her out with her kids," said Clark, who describes Mangum as quiet, funny and a voracious consumer of the news. "She gets laid off from a job, she takes up with a guy, the guy's kind of questionable, but it provides a way to help support her kids."
Friends say she considered leaving Durham for a place where her name isn't as well known, but was daunted by the prospects of uprooting her family.
"It's easy for outsiders to say she should leave Durham, but how do you do that with three children? Moving costs money," said Jackie Wagstaff, a former Durham City Council and school board member who was an outspoken supportive presence at Mangum's trial last year.
"She's not the monster she's been painted to be," said Wagstaff, who spent last Christmas with Mangum and her children.
Durham police are still investigating Daye's death, and anticipate filing new charges, spokeswoman Kammie Michael said Thursday. Mangum's lawyer, Harold "Woody" Vann, said she'll plead not guilty to the current assault charge, but declined to comment further on the case.
"I have met with her since being appointed, but I haven't had a chance to talk to her about (Daye's death)," he said. "I will do that if and when they upgrade the charges."
Wagstaff and Clark say they continue to support Mangum, and want to know more about the circumstances of Daye's death. The hospital where the 46-year-old died declined to say what caused his death.
"Don't be so quick to judge," Wagstaff said. "Let the criminal justice system work, if it can."
.
"Don't be so quick to judge," Wagstaff said. "Let the criminal justice system work, if it can."
That would have been good advice for kilgo who has been claiming he has secret information which would show the guilt of the Lacrosse players.
kilgo, thus far, has not revealed any information. He has said that the Lacrosse players were guilty.
It would be interesting to see if Ms. Mangum claims ptsd from her alleged rape.
Would that be an affirmative defense? If so, would she have to prove she was raped. I believe when the Defense offers an affirmative defense the Defense is required to prove it.
If Ms. Mangum's defense is post rape ptsd, she would have to explain why forensic testing of the rape kit showed no evidence of rape, something she has heretofore been unwilling to discuss.
"A year later, the state attorney general concluded there was no credible evidence of an attack and that the three accused men were innocent."
Sidney, note the lack of the word "proclaim", or any variation thereof.
Sidney, why have you concluded there was a crime and the Lacrosse players were guilty.
Have you reviewed the case? I think not. You have called the public record of the case a distortion.
"'She's not the monster she's been painted to be,' said Wagstaff, who spent last Christmas with Mangum and her children."
How does Jackie Wagstaff explain Ms.Mangum's history of violent behavior?
"Wagstaff and Clark say they continue to support Mangum, and want to know more about the circumstances of Daye's death."
They do not want to know why AG Cooper concluded there was no credible evidence of the crime she alleged.
"'I have met with her since being appointed, but I haven't had a chance to talk to her about (Daye's death),' he[Vann] said."
Mike Nifong never met with her, never had anyone from his office interview her until 9 months after she made her allegations.
Post a Comment