As the one year anniversary of the self-defense stabbing of Reginald Daye by Duke Lacrosse case victim/accuser Crystal Mangum rolled around, Ms. Mangum was concerned about the lack of movement on her case. She had been incarcerated since the incident and asked Sidney B. Harr, a layperson, for assistance. After sending Harr some of the prosecution discovery, the Lay Advocate for the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong drafted three Pro Se motions on behalf of Mangum which she signed. Harr physically took these motions to the court where they were filed, and he then notified the media. More than one journalist, in turn, contacted the North Carolina State Bar and asked what action it might take in response to the motions. With the State Bar named as the complainant, the Authorized Practice Committee launched an investigation into Harr’s actions.
On Thursday, April 5, 2012, Harr filed the motions he drafted for Mangum, and by the following Tuesday, April 10th, the State Bar had sent to Harr a Letter of Notice, which informed him of its investigation into his actions and the fifteen day deadline by which an answer to the complaint was to be filed. On April 19, 2012, Harr mailed to the State Bar his answer to the action taken against him. The case against Harr will be heard by the Authorized Practice Committee on July 17, 2012 at its quarterly meeting in Pinehurst.
In the June 30, 2012 issue of The News & Observer there is an article by the Associated Press titled “Murder convict free after 17 years.” It tells about a Greensboro man, LaMonte Armstrong, who was given a life sentence in 1995 for the 1988 killing of Ernestine Compton, one of Armstrong’s former college professors. He was freed on June 29, 2012 by Superior Court Judge Joe Turner after another man was linked to the crime and it was learned that the police and prosecutors hid important evidence from defense attorneys. One of the keys to LaMonte Armstrong’s conviction was the perjured testimony from a convicted felon who later admitted that police pressured him to accuse Armstrong. It should be of note that although fingerprints at the crime scene could be traced to others, there were no fingerprints or other forensic evidence to tie Mr. Armstrong to the murder.
Prosecutors’ star witnesses against Armstrong included three convicted felons who claimed that Armstrong made jailhouse confessions to them, and a fourth convicted felon who claimed to have witnessed the crime. This witness later stated that he was told by police officers that he would be charged with the killing of Ms. Compton unless he fingered Armstrong.
Theresa Newman, co-director of the Duke Law School’s Wrongful Convictions Clinic, stated, “I really hope that nobody was intentionally framing (Armstrong), but this is so close to the line, it raises questions.
Greensboro prosecutors, without any credible evidence and who withheld vital evidence from defense attorneys, using perjured testimony of their star witnesses who are all convicted felons, won a life sentence against LaMonte Armstrong. This most definitely was a frame by prosecutors, but again, the media protects them by adhering to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy and refusing to list the names of any of these so-called “ministers of justice.” Did the journalists go to the NC State Bar with the Armstrong story and ask if it will seek any action against these prosecutors who effectively stole 17 years from the life of an innocent man? No! Instead the media is more concerned about the State Bar focusing its efforts on a non-attorney civilian whose crime was that he helped to draft three motions on behalf of Crystal Mangum.
There is no doubt that when the Authorized Practice Committee of the North Carolina State Bar convenes on July 17, 2012 it will dispense the most lenient option at its disposal and give Harr a warning to cease and desist from such activity in the future. It is just unfortunate that the State Bar will have been forced to expend time, money, and effort to investigate such a trivial matter involving a non-attorney. I believe that the State Bar’s resources could have been much better spent on investigating the activities of the prosecutors who framed an innocent man for a murder he did not commit.
Link to companion documents: http://www.justice4nifong.com/legal/genl/blinkdirec.htm
72 comments:
Professor James Coleman and Duke University's Wrongful Convictions Clinic and Innocence Project are to be lauded for their work on the Lamonte Armstrong case.
One would think that, given Sid's close personal friendship with Professor Coleman, Sid would have taken the Crystal Mangum case to Professor Coleman and the Innocence project rather than attempting to perform legal work himself.....
Sid -- "Visit button for information"?
That effect is properly termed "mouse over" or "hover"..
"Visit"? That's what you do to old folk homes.
Just a little HTML education for you.
Sid wrote: "After sending Harr some of the prosecution discovery, the Lay Advocate for the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong drafted three Pro Se motions on behalf of Mangum which she signed."
That is an admission of the unauthorized practice of law.
Walt-in-Durham
Harr had/has no business inserting himself into Mangum's case in ANY fashion....the simple and correct response from him, to Mangum, IF she asked for his assistance....would have been to say "No, talk to your lawyer". Period. I doubt that Mangum was the initiator of a request for harr's help. I think he was the instigator. If Harr were concerned about how the NC Bar is prioritizing its time and resources, he should NOT have behaved as he did, in the first place. Any grade school dropout ought to have enough sense to know that a person, who has an attorney, needs to utilitze that attorney for representation. If that person thinks their attorney is incompetent, then that person ought to fire their attorney. Mangum said, after harr intruded and Shell withdrew, that she didn't understand why Shella couldn't/ wouldn't continue. That tells me that (a)she was lying, or, (b)Harr was behind it all and used her.
Now Mangum has Vann on her case, the person she did NOT want a year ago. and harr is, once again to blame.
Harr can claim that he had no part in "writing" these recent motions. It is absolutely clear that Harr picked up the "perfect"self defense thread and ran straight to mangum with it. He had no clue about it, and neither did she, until it was discussed on the site.
By filing these pointless motions, harr has further damaged Mangum's case by making public information that Shella had already told Mangum NOT to disclose.
Shame on Harr, that's all there is to this. Just shame on him.
The reason Harr has intruded in Mangum's case is all about Harr himself and has nothing to do with helping Crystal Mangum. That is clear. This is just more grandstanding by a confused and angry racist.
I think Harr has a valid point. If a prosecutor behaves as Nifong did, that individual SHOULD get the appropriate attention of the NC Bar. For this reason, I think no-concious Cline, Nifong's puppet, should absolutely have to answer for her behavior, same as Nifong. And, for the record, I agree that there are other prosecutors in North Carolina whose behavior has been lousy with ethical lapses.
It is completely wrong for Harr to conclude that the media is protecting every other prosecutor except Nifong. That's silly and simply not true.
By the way, isn't it ironic that Harr points out that a , oh my god, DUKE person came in publicly to comment on the Armstrong case. I guess the great conspiracy to smear Nifong and Harr, as carried out by Duke and the media to shield all but Nifong, didn't reach that individual.
Sid's handiwork can be seen here
So, the net impact of all this Harr intrusion is (a)loss of the attorney who Mangum wanted and replacement with an attorney she did NOT want, (b)potential sanction of Harr by the NC Bar, (c)waste of court time for Vann to stand up and say he hasn't had time to read/study the motions his client filed without his knowledge or consent, (d)further delays for Mangum. I see ZERO value or good out of Harr's busybodying, which is, of course, only for his own personal publicity needs.
Costly, sad, destructive to Mangum's case and worthless.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention two other Points about harr mucking around in mangum's case.
1. He illegally disclosed information on a public site
2. He gave the state information that shella had clearly seen as confidential and, potentially, because harr published it.....the value to mangum's defense will be diminished.
Anonymous said...
Sid -- "Visit button for information"?
That effect is properly termed "mouse over" or "hover"..
"Visit"? That's what you do to old folk homes.
Just a little HTML education for you.
Anonymous said...
Sid -- "Visit button for information"?
That effect is properly termed "mouse over" or "hover"..
"Visit"? That's what you do to old folk homes.
Just a little HTML education for you.
Thanks for the HTML education, however, being the innovator that I am, I like the term "visit" better than "mouseover" or "hover." I think the HTML lexicon should be converted from "mouseover" to "visit."
As far as "old folk homes," I don't visit them... that's where I live.
Oh i thought you said you live with your daughter......
It seems clear that your nosing into mangum's case did no good and made things worse.
Ah, you say you live alone in your letter to the APC. By the way, the committee will not be interested in, wll not hear a speech about, will not allow you to rant about anything that isnt directly on the question of your behavior in practicing law without a license. This means all the nonsense abuout nofong, mangum, duke god and the great conspiracy will be irrelevant and now allowed. You best remembyer thtis point when you show up.....
Should have typed NOT allowed. My bad
I will also add that it is up to the committee, not you, to decide what they will hear and they consider relevant. It comes down to whether you engaged in behavior that is typical of or routinely a part of the practice of law. And there is no question..... You will get a sanction warning. The problem is that you said you would not do it again and , sure enough, you did. Nobody is going to buy your bull about doing nothing but carrying papers to the courthouse. Your flaunting of the law is going to be a serious matter.
Walt said...
Sid wrote: "After sending Harr some of the prosecution discovery, the Lay Advocate for the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong drafted three Pro Se motions on behalf of Mangum which she signed."
That is an admission of the unauthorized practice of law.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt, you are absolutely correct. It is apparent, that according to the North Carolina General Statutes, that I did, in fact, violate them... however, I was not aware that by drafting motions for a Pro Se defendant I would be committing a crime. Now that I am aware that it is a crime, I will refrain from doing so in the future.
Anonymous said...
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention two other Points about harr mucking around in mangum's case.
1. He illegally disclosed information on a public site
2. He gave the state information that shella had clearly seen as confidential and, potentially, because harr published it.....the value to mangum's defense will be diminished.
Regarding 1.: Please direct me to the statute that states my disclosure of information online is illegal.
Regarding 2.: Hah! Face it. The prosecution has no case against Mangum. The State cannot prepare a defense against the truth, and the truth will set Crystal Mangum free.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Please direct me to the statute that states my disclosure of information online is illegal."
Go to the url http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/ and be enlightened.
SIDNEY HARR:
"The prosecution has no case against Mangum. The State cannot prepare a defense against the truth, and the truth will set Crystal Mangum free."
What is the truth which has been presented to the court?
Your motions have presented allegations unsupported by any facts.
If Crystal plans to say self defense as her defense, she will have to present that defense in court and prove it, as it is an affirmative defense.
An example of an affirmative defense is an alibi defense, which Reade Seligman intended to present to DA NIFONG.
However, corrupt DA NIFONG, because he did not want to be ethically bound to drop the charges against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, refused to look at Reade Seligman's evidence. In fact, corrupt DA NIFONG tried to intimidate a witness who supported Reade Seligman's alibi.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Walt, you are absolutely correct. It is apparent, that according to the North Carolina General Statutes, that I did, in fact, violate them... however, I was not aware that by drafting motions for a Pro Se defendant I would be committing a crime. Now that I am aware that it is a crime, I will refrain from doing so in the future."
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
"Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one") is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content."
Go ye and be enlightened.
SIDNEY HARR:
If you are unaware of HIPAA, you are truly ignorant.
The best I can summarize your violation is this, or maybe it is Crystal's violation. I advise you to consult an attorney, maybe your so called friend Professor Coleman.
Crystal and her attorney may have had authority to access Reginald Daye's medical records. To disclose his information to any other individual, e.g. you, she would have to have the written permission of Reginald Daye's family.
Did she have that? If the answer to that is, No, then Crystal had no legal right to disclose that information to you.
Since she had no legal right to release the information to you, it would seem you had no legal right to either read it or publish it.
In any event, your ignorance of HIPAA is no excuse of violating a patient's right to privacy under HIPAA.
I advise you to research the topic on line.
SIDNEY HARR:
Your pleading of ignorance of the law is another indication that you believe you are above the law, that you have no respect for the law.
Sounds like the prosecutor in the Armstrong case was no different than corrupt and disbarred Mike Nifong and it doesn't just happen in North Carolina.He knew that no rape had ever happened but charged innocent young men anyway.For that he should burn in hell forever along with drunk prostitute Crystal Mangum.
SIDNEY HARR:
More evidence that you believe you are above the law and that you do not respect the law:
"Please direct me to the statute that states my disclosure of information online is illegal."
You believe you have no responsibility to know what is legal and what is not. If you respected the law, you would have yourself looked up HIPAA via a google search. You did not.
If you are claiming you had no knowledge of HIPAA, that claim is not credible.
Sid,
Why did you fail to identify Randy Carroll as the prosecutor? It appears that you too have succumbed to the pressure of the Powers-That-Be who push the PAPEN Policy.
Shame on you, Sid, shame on you.
Why did you not remind us that in your strange world, LaMonte Armstrong is not innocent of the murder of Ernestine Compton? No jury or judge found him "not guilty" of murder. His conviction has been thrown out, but he could face another trial. Prosecutors likely will drop charges because evidence points to another suspect as the killer.
Most of your readers regard Armstrong as innocent, but you apply a unique requirement that is not consistent with the law.
KENHYDERAL:
You have been absent ever since you were caught misrepresenting facts about the case.
Here is something else. This comes from DIW but it is one of the 82 crimes and torts alleged by the NC NAACP to have been committed by the Lacrosse team.
"“Other men noticed Ms. M seemed quite vulnerable after drinking the clear liquid.” [No evidence exists that “Ms. M” drank any “clear liquid”—the statements of both Roberts and the captains held that 'Ms. M' drank a rum and coke, which is not clear; and, of course, the tox screen on “Ms. M” was negative."
You may claim the captains' statements were self serving, but you yourself claim she was given a drink.
kennyhyderal must be making another trip to Bremerton.
SIDNEY HARR:
Your pleading of ignorance of the law is another indication that you believe you are above the law, that you have no respect for the law.
I do not know every law on the books for the state of North Carolina. It would be ridiculous for you to expect me to. Fact is that I do have respect for the law, as is evidenced in large measure by the fact that I have no criminal record. Those without respect for the law are ones who usually have long criminal records.
Anonymous said...
Sid,
Why did you fail to identify Randy Carroll as the prosecutor? It appears that you too have succumbed to the pressure of the Powers-That-Be who push the PAPEN Policy.
Shame on you, Sid, shame on you.
Why did you not remind us that in your strange world, LaMonte Armstrong is not innocent of the murder of Ernestine Compton? No jury or judge found him "not guilty" of murder. His conviction has been thrown out, but he could face another trial. Prosecutors likely will drop charges because evidence points to another suspect as the killer.
Most of your readers regard Armstrong as innocent, but you apply a unique requirement that is not consistent with the law.
I do not ascribe to the PAPEN Policy. When I wrote the blog, I obviously did not have knowledge of the prosecutor's name.
One thing that you can certainly count on is that I will never succumb to the Powers-That-Be. Regarding LaMonte Armstrong... Yes, I believe that he's innocent.
Sid: When I wrote the blog, I obviously did not have knowledge of the prosecutor's name.
It took me about 3 minutes to determine it. I googled Armstrong's name and read other media stories. The PAPEN policy is not nearly as widespread as you claim.
You are either a lazy and incompetent buffoon or a despicable liar.
Also, by your standards, LaMonte Armstrong is not innocent of murder. When was he found not guilty?
Anonymous said...
I will also add that it is up to the committee, not you, to decide what they will hear and they consider relevant. It comes down to whether you engaged in behavior that is typical of or routinely a part of the practice of law. And there is no question..... You will get a sanction warning. The problem is that you said you would not do it again and , sure enough, you did. Nobody is going to buy your bull about doing nothing but carrying papers to the courthouse. Your flaunting of the law is going to be a serious matter.
The fact is that by filing the three motions that Crystal Mangum wrote, I did nothing more than act as a courier... carrying the documents from point A to point B. I did not help contribute to the content or presentation of the documents... they were all delivered in their original form... handwritten in pencil. I did not alter or touch the documents.
When I stated that I would not violate the unauthorized practice law, I specifically meant that I would not draft or help with the drafting of motions or other legal documents for someone else in the future. So far, I have lived up to that promise. So, I don't see where there's a serious problem.
Anonymous said...
Sid: When I wrote the blog, I obviously did not have knowledge of the prosecutor's name.
It took me about 3 minutes to determine it. I googled Armstrong's name and read other media stories. The PAPEN policy is not nearly as widespread as you claim.
You are either a lazy and incompetent buffoon or a despicable liar.
Also, by your standards, LaMonte Armstrong is not innocent of murder. When was he found not guilty?
I live a very Spartan life, channeling most of my finances to fighting for justice... I do not indulge myself in what some people may consider as necessities... For example, I do not have a car, cable, and I do not have internet. To go online, I have to walk to the library about a mile away, where I use the internet for free. Although the online computer use at the library is free, there are time limits regarding its use and the library is not open to the public 24/7.
I do not recall the specifics surrounding the article I wrote about Mr. Armstrong, but I know I composed it at my laptop at home... where I could not google.
I hope this offers some explanation as to why the prosecutor's name was not mentioned in the article.
I will grant you the benefit of the doubt.
You are a lazy and incompetent buffoon.
It took me 3 minutes to determine it. Before you post new blogs, you should spend the time to research your subjects.
How did you determine Armstrong to be innocent? When was he found not guilty?
Your definition of "innocent" does not permit you to reach a conclusion based on an evaluation of the evidence. It requires a verdict from a jury or judge. I ask that you clarify your statement to avoid any misunderstanding.
Sid -- Have you spoken to Professor Coleman about Crystal Mangum's case, or about the Innocence Project taking on her case? If not, why not?
SIDNEY HARR:
"It would be ridiculous for you to expect me to."
Most jurisdictions do not recognize ignorance of a law as an excuse for breaking said law.
You apparently do, at least when the law applies to you.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Fact is that I do have respect for the law, as is evidenced in large measure by the fact that I have no criminal record. Those without respect for the law are ones who usually have long criminal records."
You have cited a number of NC prosecutors who have wrongfully prosecuted innocent people(you have omitted DA NIFONG, who is an obviously corrupt prosecutor). I believe most if not all of them have no criminal record. Does that make them respectful of the law.
You refused to have a lawyer represent you in your frivolous lawsuit against Duke. You allege that a trial lawyer would have charged you a fee to represent you then sold you out to Duke. If such a lawyer did indeed exist and had no criminal record, would you have considered him respectful of the law?
I think not.
SIDNEY HARR:
Martin Luther King was arrested multiple times. He had a criminal record. Do you consider him respectful of the law?
SIDNEY HARR:
Today I went to a Doctor's office. There was a big poster up explaining the patients' rights to confidentiality of their medical records.
About ten years ago, I went to our local pharmacy to obtain a list of my wife's prescriptions for tax purposes. I was told I would need a written authorization to obtain that information.
It is not ignorance that you were unaware of federal laws protecting confidentiality of medical records. It was a grossly negligent, unexcusable failure as a citizen to know and respect the law.
SIDNEY HARR:
"When I stated that I would not violate the unauthorized practice law, I specifically meant that I would not draft or help with the drafting of motions or other legal documents for someone else in the future."
This implies that in some other area which would violate laws against the unlicensed practice of law, you feel free to do it. That does not convey respect for the law.
SIDNEY HARR:
"The fact is that by filing the three motions that Crystal Mangum wrote, I did nothing more than act as a courier... carrying the documents from point A to point B. I did not help contribute to the content or presentation of the documents... they were all delivered in their original form... handwritten in pencil. I did not alter or touch the documents."
The question is, did you advise her to file the motions. Did you help her to compose the motions. I think the Bar will rule that you did practice law without a license if you did.
Crystal's arguments seem to be the same arguments you have been making in your blog.
SIDNEY HARR:
"I do not ascribe to the PAPEN Policy."
The policy to which you subscribe is Prosecute All Prosecutors Except NIFONG.
SIDNEY HARR:
"
I live a very Spartan life, channeling most of my finances to fighting for justice..."
No you don't.
You have devoted most of your finances to pushing a vendetta against the three innocent Caucasian(an innocuous term except to an unrepentant blatant racist) Lacrosse players because they were not wrongfully convicted of rape based on the false allegations of a black woman.
SIDNEY HARR:
"I do not have internet. To go online, I have to walk to the library about a mile away, where I use the internet for free. Although the online computer use at the library is free, there are time limits regarding its use and the library is not open to the public 24/7."
So why don't you use the time to research the law before you go breaking a law and then pleading you should get a pass because you were ignorant of the law?
SIDNEY HARR:
"So, I don't see where there's a serious problem."
Considering the context of that quote, it is a de facto admission that you believe you are above the law and that you, even with your lack of a criminal record, do not respect the law.
SIDNEY HARR:
Regarding PAPEN as you believe in it:
De facto, you believe DA NIFONG should have gotten a pass for his unethical, illegal, wrongful prosecution of three innocent men.
You again indicate you have no respect for the law.
SIDNEY HARR:
Do you live near a McDonalds?
Most, if not all, McDonalds offer free wi fi.
KENHYDERAL:
Why haven' we heard from you. Are you looking for more facts to misrepresent?
If Harr does not know about HIPPA, then he is lying about his past medical experience. HIPPA has been a federal law, widely published in EVERY healthcare delivery venue, for YEARS!. If he does know about HIPPA, and is just playing dumb, then he is wasting other people's time. Stupid, either way.
Harr not only disclosed PHI, he also disclosed information about the case that Shella had specifically told Mangum not to give to or share with anybody. SHE is just as guilty as Harr. Supposedly, Mangum has a degree (from a school that gave us no conscious Cline, and supposedly Mangum can read and write. You would think she would understand that "confidential" means "confidential". But, nope, both she and Harr believe themselves to be above the law.
Now we have Harr claiming ignorance of the law as an excuse for behaving like a lawyer wannabe. I find the whole silly mess ridiculous.
SIDNEY HARR:
You must be late gettong to the library today.
It is absolutely astounding, and I do not mean in any good way, that you can say this:
On the one hand your involvement in Crystal's defense with your practicing law without a license and your breaking of Federal laws on the confidentiality of medical records is no big thing.
On the other hand, when AG Cooper expressed his belief in the innocence of the falsely accused Lacrosse defendants after a thorough investigation, that was inappropriate.
You show how disrespectful of the law you are.
KENHYDERAL:
Where are you?
Are you wandering around Raleigh looking for the library where SIDNEY posts his blather? Are you looking for more facts to misrepresent?
Lance the Intern said...
Sid -- Have you spoken to Professor Coleman about Crystal Mangum's case, or about the Innocence Project taking on her case? If not, why not?
Hey, Lance. I have not spoken to Professor Coleman since April 14, 2010, when he saved my bacon from being tossed in the hoosegow by sinister Duke University conspirators who discriminated against me because I am a Nifong supporter and tried to have be incarcerated because I'm African American.
Not being able to stop by Coleman's office at the Duke Law School for friendly visits is one of the things I miss most about not going to Duke's campus. I also miss visiting my other friends, such as Michael Munger, director of the Political Science department.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
Martin Luther King was arrested multiple times. He had a criminal record. Do you consider him respectful of the law?
He respected the laws that he did not break. Obviously he did not respect those that he did break.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"When I stated that I would not violate the unauthorized practice law, I specifically meant that I would not draft or help with the drafting of motions or other legal documents for someone else in the future."
This implies that in some other area which would violate laws against the unlicensed practice of law, you feel free to do it. That does not convey respect for the law.
I do not plan on violating any laws about unlicensed practice of laws. What I stated was that transporting documents to the office of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of having them filed does not constitute activity specifically limited to licensed attorneys. Ergo, I did not violate any law regarding unauthorized practice.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"
I live a very Spartan life, channeling most of my finances to fighting for justice..."
No you don't.
You have devoted most of your finances to pushing a vendetta against the three innocent Caucasian(an innocuous term except to an unrepentant blatant racist) Lacrosse players because they were not wrongfully convicted of rape based on the false allegations of a black woman.
I have no vendetta against the Duke Lacrosse defendants and I have not exerted an ounce of effort in an attempt to cause them ill will or malice. My efforts have been devoted recently to helping Crystal Mangum receive justice which she has been denied by a vendetta prosecution against her.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"The fact is that by filing the three motions that Crystal Mangum wrote, I did nothing more than act as a courier... carrying the documents from point A to point B. I did not help contribute to the content or presentation of the documents... they were all delivered in their original form... handwritten in pencil. I did not alter or touch the documents."
The question is, did you advise her to file the motions. Did you help her to compose the motions. I think the Bar will rule that you did practice law without a license if you did.
Crystal's arguments seem to be the same arguments you have been making in your blog.
The three motions I recently filed for Crystal were composed and handwritten on paper by her. I did not give input into the content or otherwise give her legal advice. The law-abiding citizen that I am, I will do my best to steer clear of any appearance of impropriety.
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
Do you live near a McDonalds?
Most, if not all, McDonalds offer free wi fi.
I don't think McDonalds would appreciate it if I used their wi-fi without making a purchase. So, therefore, using the wi-fi at McDonalds would not only not be free, but would make unwanted contributions to my girth at the same time. Thanks for the suggestion anyway.
"Hey, Lance. I have not spoken to Professor Coleman since April 14, 2010"
So -- Even though Professor Coleman is one of DU's advisers to the Innocence Project, you have not spoken to him (you're so-called "friend") in over 2 years, nor have you contacted the Innocence Project about Crystal Mangum's case -- a case in which you feel strongly that she is factually innocent and has been unjustly incarcerated for over 1 year?
That, Sid is staggeringly unbelievable.
You DO realize that you do not need to visit the DU campus in order to contact Professor Coleman, don't you?
Here -- I'll help you:
email: jcoleman@law.duke.edu
Tel: 919-613-7057
North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence:
email: admin@nccai.org
When are you going to post the contents of the 3 motions that Crystal wrote?
SIDNEY HARR:
"Hey, Lance. I have not spoken to Professor Coleman since April 14, 2010, when he saved my bacon from being tossed in the hoosegow by sinister Duke University conspirators who discriminated against me because I am a Nifong supporter and tried to have be incarcerated because I'm African American.
Not being able to stop by Coleman's office at the Duke Law School for friendly visits is one of the things I miss most about not going to Duke's campus. I also miss visiting my other friends, such as Michael Munger, director of the Political Science department."
In other words, you and Professor Coleman are not really good friends. If you were, you would find a way of availing yourself of his advice.
SIDNEY HARR:
"[Martin Luther King} respected the laws that he did not break. Obviously he did not respect those that he did break."
So, you do not respect the federal law respecting the confidentiality of private medical records.
You also seem not to respect state laws regarding the practice of law.
Remember, ignorance of the law in no way buys you a pass for breaking of a law.
SIDNEY HARR:
"I don't think McDonalds would appreciate it if I used their wi-fi without making a purchase. So, therefore, using the wi-fi at McDonalds would not only not be free, but would make unwanted contributions to my girth at the same time. Thanks for the suggestion anyway."
If you think you can get away with breaking laws because you choose to be ignorant of them, you should have no compunction about sitting in a Mickey D parking lot and using their free WiFi.
SIDNEY HARR:
"The three motions I recently filed for Crystal were composed and handwritten on paper by her. I did not give input into the content or otherwise give her legal advice. The law-abiding citizen that I am, I will do my best to steer clear of any appearance of impropriety."
Let's see if the state bar finds your denials credible. I think they are not credible.
SIDNEY HARR:
"I have no vendetta against the Duke Lacrosse defendants and I have not exerted an ounce of effort in an attempt to cause them ill will or malice. My efforts have been devoted recently to helping Crystal Mangum receive justice which she has been denied by a vendetta prosecution against her."
BULLSHIT!!!
If you had no vendetta against the Lacrosse defendants, you would not be writing that Crystal was the accuser(rather than false accuser, which implies you believe they are guilty), you would not be saying they shook down Duke out of greed, you would not have been calling AG Cooper's expression of belief in their innocence inappropriate, you would not be calling it a "Jedi mind trick" when the media says they were exonerated(I think you said they were not proven innocent, which implies you believe they were not entitled to the presumption of innocence), you would not be attributing their exoneration to a carpetbagger jihad, for which jihad you have never offered proof.
Your whole blog has been nothing but a vendetta against the Lacrosse defendants because they are Caucasian men who were not wrongfully convicted of rape based on Crystal's false allegations.
Justice for Crystal in the Duke rape case would have been a criminal conviction and a prison term for filing a false police report.
SIDNEY HARR:
"I do not plan on violating any laws about unlicensed practice of laws. What I stated was that transporting documents to the office of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of having them filed does not constitute activity specifically limited to licensed attorneys. Ergo, I did not violate any law regarding unauthorized practice."
What you stated and what you actually did may be two separate things.
You state that Crystal is the accuser in the Duke rape case. The reality is Crystal is the false accuser in the phony Duke rape case.
SIDNEY HARR:
"My efforts have been devoted recently to helping Crystal Mangum receive justice which she has been denied by a vendetta prosecution against her."
What ever happened to Justice for DA NIFONG.
That seems to have gone by the wayside so you can devote yourself to your vendetta against the Innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players.
SIDNEY HARR:
This is a post which Joan Foster posted to the appropriately named Liestoppers blog. It is applicable to your pleadings of ignorance of the law, your practicing law without a license and your violations of Federal law regarding confidentiality of medical records:
"My father called people who feigned ignorance for their own promotion, the 'Know Nothings.' He would tell us time and again that the Know Nothings were the worst of the lot. They had neither the courage of their convictions, nor the respect of either side. This case has brought the Know Nothings out in force. And, when the Hoax is ended, they will forever have to wear the tee shirt."
amen to J. Foster! Her postings are legendary and worth reading...one and all.
It is pathetic that Mangum continues to be used, knowingly and unknowingly by every halfwit left-brained apologist who wants everything from hang nails to global warming to be blamed on the evil white oppressor.
There is nothing more racist and demeaning than the attitude that government has to step in and DO FOR the poor downtrodden (read non white) masses who just can't catch a break in white society. In exchange for free food, free housing, free cell phones, free money, and god knows what else, all these far left politicians want in return is votes. Keep the masses dumb, lazy, totally unmotivated, and sucking up the pablum that they are victims. Harr is a classic victim huckster.....he is a user and his kind brand of racist conspiracy nonsense is tailor-made for intellectually and morally bankrupt people like Mangum.
And now we have Harr thinking he should be excused for violating federal law, violating prohibitions against playing lawyer wannabe, disrespecting the dead and the family of the deceased, and prattling about his nauseating crusades. spare us all, hard, I am running out of Pepto Bismol.
Anonymous said...
"amen to J. Foster! Her postings are legendary and worth reading...one and all."
Bahahahahahahahahahah
Amen to kennyhyderal! His postings are legendary and worth reading...one and all.
Anonymous July 8, 2012 4:46 AM
Don't forget all the posts attributed to Malek Williams
Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:
"I don't think McDonalds would appreciate it if I used their wi-fi without making a purchase. So, therefore, using the wi-fi at McDonalds would not only not be free, but would make unwanted contributions to my girth at the same time. Thanks for the suggestion anyway."
If you think you can get away with breaking laws because you choose to be ignorant of them, you should have no compunction about sitting in a Mickey D parking lot and using their free WiFi.
Although it may be perfectly legal to sit in a McDonald's parking lot and use their Wi-Fi, I would not consider it to be appropriate... I would feel compelled to make a purchase if I were to remain on their property to use their product. So, you see, I have morals!
My next post will be an interactive flog that focuses on the bogus larceny of chose in action charge... used by prosecutors in an attempt to hang a life sentence without parole conviction on Ms. Mangum. The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong will not permit this travesty of justice, however.
SIDNEY HARR:
"Although it may be perfectly legal to sit in a McDonald's parking lot and use their Wi-Fi, I would not consider it to be appropriate... I would feel compelled to make a purchase if I were to remain on their property to use their product. So, you see, I have morals!"
You wouldn't sit in McDonalds and use their wifi but you would carry on a vendetta against three innocent men because they were not wrongfully convicted of rape after being falsely accused by a black woman.
Your idea that you have morals is a sick joke.
SIDNEY HARR:
"My next post will be an interactive flog that focuses on the bogus larceny of chose in action charge... used by prosecutors in an attempt to hang a life sentence without parole conviction on Ms. Mangum. The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong will not permit this travesty of justice, however."
The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong said they would get DA NIFONG's law license reinstated. Has that happened? No.
Post a Comment