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:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 246 of 246"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."
So her book hasn't sold.
It raises the question, if she could show she had been raped, why was there no civil suit filed. If she could make a credible case, many trial lawyers would have represented her for a contingency fee.
It kind of supports Mr. Cooper's evaluation, that there was no credible evidence that the crime she had alleged ever occurred and that the people who were accused were, as a matter of FACT rather than of opinion, were innocent.
"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."
Why haven't any of her enablers helped her out?
.
.
$ $ $
WOW !
Rich people will really pay you
to write this stuff?
Who do we send the Bill to ?
Rae Evans ?
Someone is making a mint this week.
Look. Over 200 comments !
Soon they will be able to afford
a Brand New Lacrosse Stick !
Whoopee !
$ $ $
Send the bill to Bill Bell.
.
Will she now be charged with murder? Boyfriend of woman in Duke University rape scandal dies after knife attack
By Daily Mail 14th April 2011
The woman at the centre of the Duke University lacrosse player rape scandal could face murder charges after the boyfriend she is accused of stabbing died in hospital.
Reginald Daye, 46, died last night, almost two weeks after his girlfriend Crystal Mangum allegedly stabbed him in the chest with a kitchen knife after an argument.
Police said it was 'more than likely' the 32-year-old, who is being held in Durham County Jail, will now be charged with his murder.
Mangum was originally charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill after the alleged attack in the early hours of April 3.
Mr Daye was rushed to Duke University Hospital after his nephew called police. The nephew told officers the couple had been arguing about rent money at the apartment they share in Durham, North Carolina.
He said the argument became so heated someone had called police earlier in the evening, but they had left before the alleged stabbing.
Mangum has since been held on a $300,000 bond. Jose Lopez Senior, Durham Police Department Chief, told the Herald-Sun: 'More than likely, we will be upgrading the charge to murder.'
Mangum became infamous in 2006 when she claimed three Duke Lacrosse players sexually assaulted her at a party.
Duke University lacrosse players Reade Seligmann, Dave Evans and Collin Finnerty were accused of raping her while she was working as a stripper at a party thrown by the team, the Duke Blue Devils.
The case caused a media storm over allegations of racism.
It was alleged the players had asked only for white or Hispanic strippers, but became angry when two black dancers turned up.
Prosecutor Mike Nifong indicted the three on charges of rape, sexual assault and kidnapping.
The university suspended the players, sacked the team's coach and eventually cancelled the entire lacrosse season.
But the case fell apart because of a lack of evidence and Nifong was forced to resign after scathing criticism over his handling of it.
.
.
DUKE DENIES FRAUD VS. LACROSSE PLAYERS
The Herald Sun
04.14.11
By Ray Gronberg
DURHAM -- Duke University's lawyers have formally denied that the school's two top administrators, President Richard Brodhead and Executive Vice President Tallman Trask, committed fraud against members of Duke's 2005-06 men's lacrosse team.
The denials addressed claims that Brodhead and Trask in the spring of 2006 enticed team captains to talk to them about an ill-fated party -- against the advice of the players' defense counsel -- by promising a non-existent "student-administrator privilege."
Neither man made such a promise, or in any event relayed what he learned from the players to the Durham police who were investigating stripper Crystal Mangum's bogus claim that she'd been raped at the party, Duke lawyers said.
Duke's lawyers also denied allegations that Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek had initially urged players not to consult an attorney, or their parents, after they'd learned of Mangum's claims.
They admitted that Wasiolek eventually had offered up the name of a local lawyer, the since-deceased Wes Covington, as someone the players might work with.
But they denied allegations that Covington was working for Duke as a behind-the-scenes fixer for athletes and other students who faced legal troubles.
The school's legal team also admitted that a Duke police sergeant had given Durham investigators key-card data verifying the movements of team members around campus the night of the party.
But they denied that Duke officials had conspired with former District Attorney Mike Nifong to hide the disclosure from the players and their attorneys by cooking up a bogus subpoena for the information months later.
Administrators relayed to players a notice they'd received the subpoena, but did so in the honest belief that investigators didn't already have the data, the lawyers said. They didn't know at the time that the sergeant had already passed it along.
Thursday's filings, which covered 732 pages, answered two lawsuits against the school and the city filed by groups of players who escaped indictment in 2006. Duke settled out of court with the three players Nifong did originally indict on rape charges, David Evans, Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.
Duke lawyers for the first time were addressing the facts of the case. The various parties until Thursday had traded briefs only on the potential legal validity of the claims the players had made.
U.S. District Court Judge James Beaty Jr. last month allowed some of the claims to go forward, including the fraud allegation against Duke.
Lawyers for the city are due to file an answer on the factual issues by June 14. They're dealing with three lawsuits, the additional one being from Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann.
Thursday's responses for the most part didn't go into any detail about the actions of the Duke University Medical Center nurse, Tara Levicy, who relayed the findings of a sexual-assault exam of Mangum to police.
Duke lawyers wouldn't discuss any particulars of the exam until and unless Beaty issues a court order releasing the school of its obligations under federal law to guard the privacy of Mangum's medical records.
They did, however, deny that Levicy had in any way misrepresented the findings of the exam to Durham police and to Nifong. Nor did she tailor her responses to their them to bolster the prosecution, Duke's lawyers said.
Beaty has allowed the players to pursue claims that Duke officials failed to properly supervise Levicy, and that they're responsible for any participation by her in a scheme with authorities to obstruct justice.
.
"Duke lawyers for the FIRST time were addressing the facts of the case.(emphasis added)"
Duke could have addressed the facts of the case and saved themselves a lot of money and trouble.
Kilgo, have you asked why Duke has not until now addressed the facts of the case. Duke has tried to avoid addressing the facts of the case.
"But the case fell apart because of a lack of EVIDENCE...(emphasis added)"
kilgo, please not what you have quoted.
Sidney, a decent, ethical prosecutor does not proceed with a case in which there is no evidence. On many occasions prior to March 13, 2006, the Durham DA office dismissed rape cases for a lack of evidence to prosecute.
Unfortunately, African American DA Tracy Cline did try to prosecute Leon Brown for rape although she had no evidence. Sidney, why have you never noted this case?
"...Nifong was forced to resign after scathing criticism over his handling of it."
Sidney, that criticism began before Mrs. Evans made her statement to 60 Minutes, which statement you claim initiated the "jihad" against Mr. Nifong.
"It was ALLEGED(emphasis added)..."
Kilgo, Sidney, please note the emphasized word.
It was alleged but never proven. The evidence Mr. Nifong collected in the case, some of which he improperly and unethically held from the Defense, indicated no crime had happened.
If no crime had happened, those accused of said crime are as a matter of fact and not opinion innocent.
From CNN:
"The case remains under investigation and we do anticipate upgrading the charges," police spokeswoman Kammie Michael said. "No new charges have been filed at this time and there is no court hearing scheduled for today."
This is a statement from the DPD concerning the charges against Ms. Mangum.
Compare this to what the DPD via Crimestoppers and then Corporal David Addison said about the alleged rape of Ms. Mangum.
Hey kilgo,
Crystal Mangum has made more money via the sales of her book than anyone has made posting comments on Sidney's blog.
kilgo, it is obvious Sidney is not making any money on his blog. Why else would he have launched his frivolous attempt to coerce Duke University to to support his vendetta against the Lacrosse defendants?
$ $ $
S O O - I E
S O O - I E
Come Feed the Troll.
$ $ $
Troll is hungry Today.
Troll wanna buy new Lacrosse Stick.
$ $ $
Anonymous said...
"Sidney, are you dodging the question, will Professor Coleman testify in your behalf? Do you plan to subpoena him?"
I thought I had answered the question. I have no intention of calling him to testify at this time. I don't see the necessity of it at the moment.
Sidney, why are you not commenting on Ms. Mangum's situation? She is in serious trouble. Do you not care any more?
kilgo has lapsed again into incoherence.
Well, he has never emerged from incoherence when it comes to facing the phony rape charges filed against the Lacrosse defendants.
Sidney, in spite of your protestations to the contrary, you have been blogging that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are guilty of raping Ms. Mangum. Have you considered any legal ramifications?
Your malice is res ipsa loquitur. You have given those defendants a cause of action against you. Of course, someone like kilgo would say that they haven't sued is evidence of their guilt.
If they did sue, you would have to testify why you would believe they were guilty. Would you respond, Well, they have sued me so they must be innocent? I think not.
The only defense you would have would be to prove they did perpetrate the rape. In your blog you have demonstrated you can not.
And try testifying that you can not prove it because the carpetbagger jihad has the evidence all covered up. You can not prove the existence of any such jihad.
Think about all that.
Kilgo, I should have said that Ms. Mangum has made more money from her book than I have ever made by posting comments on this blog.
"I thought I had answered the question. I have no intention of calling him to testify at this time. I don't see the necessity of it at the moment."
Sidney, I say until now you have not answered that question.
Do you comprehend what you are saying. You are saying that Professor Coleman, your friend, is a witness to your near arrest by Duke. But you see no reason to call him.
Think of what that does to your credibility.
Send the bill to Bill Bell.
Kilgo,
Send a copy to Patrick Baker. Emphasize that you have distracted commenters from discussing the DPD's activities and their faux investigation.
Sidney, if i thought about lawsuits the way some of your followers do, I would ask you, what is it that you do want Professor Coleman not to tell the court.
It is reasonable to believe a litigant will not call a witness to testify in his/her behalf because that litigant fears what that witness will tell the court.
It is sort of like Mr. Nifong withholding from the court the evidence which would have shot down his case, or avoiding a probable cause hearing because he could not demonstrate probable cause to arrest the three Lacrosse players.
$ $ $
DUKE DENIES FRAUD VS. LACROSSE PLAYERS
The H Y E N A S
dare not touch this one.
Are they awaiting instructions
from B R O O K L Y N ?
$ $ $
Sidney, we are still waiting to hear how you will try to blame Ms. Mangum's present situation on the Lacrosse Players and on the carpetbagger jihad.
Kilgo, regarding your last comment, why have the Lacrosse players persisted in prosecuting their lawsuits? Why have the defendants persisted in trying to have the suits dismissed without discovery happening.
Do you think there will be a wrongful death suit over the death of Mr. Daye. I hope so. Durham and the DPD might be named as defendants and they would have to explain why they dealt with Ms. Mangum the way they did.
It probably will not happen, but Sidney and his J4N gang should also be named as defendants in such a suit. They bear a responsibility for why such a demonstrably violent person was never held accountable for her acts.
You have confirmed what was said earlier today, you are totally incoherent when it comes to facing the reality of the Duke rape case. Rather, I meant the Duke non-rape case.
.
QUACK
QUACK
QUACK
.
he squirms like a worm
'cause he knows he's f----d
silly chicken killy
is quacking up.
Have you anything meaningful to say/
I thought not.
Still nothing to say?
Silly killy still has nothing to say. Not that he ever did have anything meaningful to say.
Sidney, with regard to the topic of a lawsuit by the Lacrosse defendants against you:
The Lacrosse players have not sued you. That indicates that they think you are not worth suing, that you are really incapable of doing anything, that you really are powerless.
That does not support your belief that rich and powerful carpetbagger jihadists are out to get you because of your support for Mr. Nifong.
Sidney, suppose you got to argue your case before Judge Judy. What would happen if you said to Judge Judy, Professor Coleman intervened to prevent my arrest?
Judge Judy would ask, Where is Professor Coleman?
You would reply, I did not feel it necessary to call Professor Coleman.
Judge Judy would then tell you, You can not tell me what Professor Coleman did. That's hearsay. Hearsay is not admissable.
You see, when you call a witness, you have to let opposing counsel cross examine the witness. In the above described scenario, opposing counsel would not have the opportunity to ask your "friend", Did you prevent Duke from arresting Mr. Harr?
Are you concerned about what Professor Coleman would say on cross examination?
How do you plan to make your case. Can you provide corroborating evidence?
Are there any witnesses who can corroborate your story?
Sidney, when will you show any interest in Ms. Mangum's latest predicament?
How are you going to blame this on the Lacrosse team and on the carpetbagger jihad?
When will kilgo manifest his latest meaningless rant?
"Your malice is res ipsa loquitur."
Let's see you try to respond to that, Kilgo.
$ $ $
W H O O P I E ! !
We now have enough comments
to buy us a Brand New Lacrosse Stick !
Thank you, First Year Law Student
for your much appreciated support.
We are quite sure you have promising
legal career ahead of you,
fixing underage drinking citations
with Ekstrand & Ekstrand ! !
$ $ $
kilgo still has nothing meaningful to say.
kilgo still has nothing meaningful to say
kilgo, you have claimed to have knowledge that shows the Lacrosse players did rape Crystal Mangum. But you refuse to reveal that information.
If you do have such knowledge, are you not obstructing justice?
Why not just admit you have no such knowledge and save yourself prosecution?
kilgo still has nothing to say.
Neither has Sidney.
Anonymous said...
"'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.'
Why haven't any of her enablers helped her out?"
I do not know who you define as enablers. The media, with its biased reporting, has enabled the mindless public to succumb to the Jedi mind-trick in carrying out the Carpetbaggers' jihadist agenda against Nifong and his supporters.
I will attempt to upload a flog (Flash + blog) in the blog site, along with the usual written script. Don't know how it will work.
Also, will include a link to the latest Part 16 of the comic strip.
"I do not know who you define as enablers."
I define you as an enabler via your talk that she was not responsible for all the havoc she wreaked over the last five years.
Sidney,
Let's face it you are a racist bigot
Post a Comment