justice4nifong: Lawsuit filed against the State of North Carolina

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Lawsuit filed against the State of North Carolina

418 comments:

1 – 200 of 418 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Lawsuit filed against the State of North Carolina"

SIDNEY is going to show the world again what a deluded megalomaniac he is.; August 18, 2013 at 11:57 AM
A Lawyer said...: Dr. Harr:
The 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars your lawsuit against the State of North Carolina. The doctrine of absolute judicial immunity bars your lawsuit against the District Judge and Magistrate Judge. The doctrine of res judicata bars your lawsuit against Duke. The doctrine of standing is an additional bar to most of your lawsuit. There are other problems with your lawsuit (many of them, in fact). Your lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice and you very well may be subject to monetary sanctions or other penalties.

Please note: I am a lawyer but I am not your lawyer. I am not giving (and cannot give) you legal advice. But I very strongly urge you to show your lawsuit to a North Carolina lawyer (perhaps your law professor friend) before you proceed on your own. The consequences for you may be very severe.; August 18, 2013 at 12:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Bilge.......from a whacko racist liar...; August 18, 2013 at 2:31 PM
Walt said...: Sid, as I wrote before, you should read Rule 11 before you file. It will save you some grief. A lawyer makes good points. I would add that you are attempting to attack a judgment by means that are not allowed. The courts take a dim view of that.

Walt-in-Durham; August 18, 2013 at 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...: This nonsense waste of paper is nothing but trash, written by a senile old man who is trying to draw attention to himself and his racist views of the world. Pure crap; August 18, 2013 at 5:40 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Lawsuit filed against the State of North Carolina"

You got it wrong. It should be:

Ridiculously frivolous "Lawsuit filed against the State of North Carolina"; August 19, 2013 at 4:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney is dribbling again....somebody get him a Depends.; August 19, 2013 at 7:54 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Click here to view lawsuit filed against the State"

HUH!!!

I clicked there and saw nothing that would make a lawsuit against North Carolina. All I saw were a number of uncorroborated allegations plus another ridiculous attempt to make out violent convicted murderer Shan Carter into someone who was just minding his own business when he shot and killed Demetrius Green.; August 19, 2013 at 11:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Click here to view lawsuit filed against the State"

HUH!!!

I clicked there and saw nothing that would make a lawsuit against North Carolina. All I saw were a number of uncorroborated allegations plus another ridiculous attempt to make out violent convicted murderer Shan Carter into someone who was just minding his own business when he shot and killed Demetrius Green.

You are not alone in your inability to recognize the egregious mistreatment of Tar Heelians by the State. Simply put, the state has in place a justice system that is corrupted and has been hijacked. In bringing the suit, I am, in fact, the one who is truly representing the best interest of the people... not the state.; August 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid, as I wrote before, you should read Rule 11 before you file. It will save you some grief. A lawyer makes good points. I would add that you are attempting to attack a judgment by means that are not allowed. The courts take a dim view of that.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

I already filed the lawsuit. I filed it hours before first posting it online.

As far as attacking a judgment, I followed the appeals procedure to the Supreme Court. Since that did not work, I attacked the judgment in a new suit that includes misdeeds and malfeasances on a grander level.; August 19, 2013 at 1:17 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: A Lawyer said...
Dr. Harr:
The 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars your lawsuit against the State of North Carolina. The doctrine of absolute judicial immunity bars your lawsuit against the District Judge and Magistrate Judge. The doctrine of res judicata bars your lawsuit against Duke. The doctrine of standing is an additional bar to most of your lawsuit. There are other problems with your lawsuit (many of them, in fact). Your lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice and you very well may be subject to monetary sanctions or other penalties.

Please note: I am a lawyer but I am not your lawyer. I am not giving (and cannot give) you legal advice. But I very strongly urge you to show your lawsuit to a North Carolina lawyer (perhaps your law professor friend) before you proceed on your own. The consequences for you may be very severe.

A Lawyer, thanks for your advice. Not being a lawyer, I do not pretend to know all of the rules and doctrines. What I do know is that I have been denied my day in court on a ruling that is in direct conflict with case law. For example, why is Heather Sue Mercer able to file a sex discrimination lawsuit against Duke University and I am not? Being an African American and a supporter of Mike Nifong should not deprive me of my rights. Note: Duke University was a so-called private institution when Ms. Mercer filed her complaint... what has changed since?

The problem with the summary judgment on Motions to Dismiss is that it can be abused by judges in order to allow big corporations and institutions to prevail in situations where they would otherwise lose. That is what happened in my case.; August 19, 2013 at 1:24 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
Important announcement!

Judge Beaty has granted Linwood Wilson's Motion for Dismissal in the frivolous lawsuit brought against him by the un-indicted Duke Lacrosse players.

The motion was granted on Thursday, August 15, 2013, the same day I filed my lawsuit. The mainstream media has failed to mention both. Let me know if you want to see a copy of the ruling.; August 19, 2013 at 1:31 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: As you were.; August 19, 2013 at 1:31 PM
A Lawyer said...: As far as attacking a judgment, I followed the appeals procedure to the Supreme Court. Since that did not work, I attacked the judgment in a new suit that includes misdeeds and malfeasances on a grander level.

Exactly. You took your case to the Supreme Court and you lost. That means your case is over. Whether the first decision was right or wrong no longer matters. To attempt to relitigate a case you already lost is frivolous and vexatious. This will not end well for you, I am sorry to say.; August 19, 2013 at 1:58 PM
Walt said...: Sid, A Lawyer has it right. This is vexatious and frivolous, by definition. Hope you brought your checkbook.

Walt-in-Durham; August 19, 2013 at 2:02 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"You are not alone in your inability to recognize the egregious mistreatment of Tar Heelians by the State. Simply put, the state has in place a justice system that is corrupted and has been hijacked. In bringing the suit, I am, in fact, the one who is truly representing the best interest of the people... not the state."

You got it wrong.

What I am not alone in is recognizing you have no case. You are a deluded megalomaniac.; August 19, 2013 at 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"You are not alone in your inability to recognize the egregious mistreatment of Tar Heelians by the State."

Let's see. Let's go through this again. Shan Carter, convicted felon, provokes a confrontation with Tyrone Baker, another convicted felon, by breaking into and robbing his apartment. Tyrone Baker tries to confront him about this. Shan Carter fires on Tyrone Baker with an illegally possessed firearm. Tyrone Baker flees. Shan Carter pursues him, keeps firing and kills an innocent bystander, 8 year old Demetrius Greene.

SIDNEY offers this as an example of how corrupt the NC justice system is. Shan Carter was tried and convicted of two counts of felony murder. SIDNEY says Shan Carter should have gotten a pass because Shan Carter claimed to be acting in self defense.; August 19, 2013 at 3:23 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"For example, why is Heather Sue Mercer able to file a sex discrimination lawsuit against Duke University and I am not?"

First, just because Heather Sue Mercer files a frivolous suit against Duke does not give you the right to do so.

Second, if you had had a lawyer, you might have made out better. In spite of your protestations, you did not have a lawyer because no lawyer would take your case. Any sane lawyer would have seen you had no case.; August 19, 2013 at 3:27 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Being an African American and a supporter of Mike Nifong should not deprive me of my rights"

You were not deprived of any rights.

Judging from your suit, you were violating Duke's solicitation policy(Duke, not you, has the right to make that decision) and you refused to comply with their instructions to cease and desist.

Then you felt offended and thought that gave you the right to shake down Duke.; August 19, 2013 at 3:30 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Note: Duke University was a so-called private institution when Ms. Mercer filed her complaint... what has changed since?"

Nothing.

Ms. Mercer had a case and had a competent lawyer to represent her. You had neither.; August 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
Important announcement!"

SIDNEY is again crying, hey everybody, pay attention to me.

"Judge Beaty has granted Linwood Wilson's Motion for Dismissal in the frivolous lawsuit brought against him by the un-indicted Duke Lacrosse players."

Maybe you are hoping you will be able to plead your case before Judge Beaty. Even Judge Beaty would not find in favor of you.

"The motion was granted on Thursday, August 15, 2013, the same day I filed my lawsuit. The mainstream media has failed to mention both."

Why you would think your ridiculously frivolous lawsuit is news shows only that you are a deluded megalomaniac.; August 19, 2013 at 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The problem with the summary judgment on Motions to Dismiss is that it can be abused by judges in order to allow big corporations and institutions to prevail in situations where they would otherwise lose. That is what happened in my case."

What case? You did not have a case.; August 19, 2013 at 3:36 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR(to Walt in Durham):

"Hey, Walt.

I already filed the lawsuit. I filed it hours before first posting it online.

As far as attacking a judgment, I followed the appeals procedure to the Supreme Court. Since that did not work, I attacked the judgment in a new suit that includes misdeeds and malfeasances on a grander level."

The only misdeeds and malfeasances in this case are your own. You are saying that because you screwed up in the fist place, you have a right to screw up again on a much grander scale.; August 19, 2013 at 3:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Rephrase:

SIDNEY HARR:

"Note: Duke University was a so-called private institution when Ms. Mercer filed her complaint... what has changed since?"

Nothing.

Ms. Mercer had a competent lawyer to represent her. You did not.; August 19, 2013 at 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...: No case, sidney. you just keep on trying to draw attention to yourself though......pathetic racist loser; August 19, 2013 at 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

A fact you choose to ignore is that Heather Sue Mercer sued under Title IX. Give us a legal precedent that says someone suing Duke under Title IX gives you the right to sue Duke.; August 20, 2013 at 4:44 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "What I do know is that I have been denied my day in court on a ruling that is in direct conflict with case law. For example, why is Heather Sue Mercer able to file a sex discrimination lawsuit against Duke University and I am not? Being an African American and a supporter of Mike Nifong should not deprive me of my rights."

Again, you demonstrate your lazy approach to the law. Ms. Mercer sued Duke University under Title IX of Education Amendments of 1972 codified at 20 U.S.C. 1681 - 1688. 20 U.S.C. 1681 reads in relevant part: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance..."

Ms. Mercer filed her lawsuit alleging two important facts: (1) that she was was excluded fromparticipation based on sex, and (2) that Duke University received federal financial assistance. Your suit failed to allege either. In fact, you alleged that you were discriminated on based on race and supporting Mike Nifong. Ms. Mercer's precedent is not at all applicable to your situation. Even the most modest amount of effort would have disclosed the difference in law and fact. But, you did not make even that minimal effort.

Walt-in-Durham; August 20, 2013 at 6:31 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: A Lawyer said...
As far as attacking a judgment, I followed the appeals procedure to the Supreme Court. Since that did not work, I attacked the judgment in a new suit that includes misdeeds and malfeasances on a grander level.

Exactly. You took your case to the Supreme Court and you lost. That means your case is over. Whether the first decision was right or wrong no longer matters. To attempt to relitigate a case you already lost is frivolous and vexatious. This will not end well for you, I am sorry to say.

A Lawyer and Walt,
What I am saying is this. Heather Sue Mercer had her day in court. I did not. Just because I am an African American and a supporter of Mike Nifong does not mean that I should be deprived of my day in court. Seeking justice and being vexatious are two entirely different things.

Can either of you explain why Mercer's discrimination case was heard in court by a jury, and mine was tossed out allegedly because Duke University is immune from discrimination suits?; August 20, 2013 at 7:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Duke University is NOT immune from discrimination suits. You are an idiot.; August 20, 2013 at 7:30 AM
Anonymous said...: You case was tossed because you had NO case. You had "your day in court". Not one, but several judges made rulings relevant to your NON case. There is NO LAW that requires the court to grant you the opportunity to grandstand in front of a jury just because you want to do so. Are you taking medication? You need it.; August 20, 2013 at 7:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Rephrase:

SIDNEY HARR:

"Note: Duke University was a so-called private institution when Ms. Mercer filed her complaint... what has changed since?"

Nothing.

Ms. Mercer had a competent lawyer to represent her. You did not.

So regardless of the merits of a complaint, you believe that a case should be dismissed unless the plaintiff is represented by a high-powered lawyer... Right?; August 20, 2013 at 7:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
No case, sidney. you just keep on trying to draw attention to yourself though......pathetic racist loser

I am not a publicity seeker... I have no desire to draw attention to myself. I am a truth and justice seeker.; August 20, 2013 at 7:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Duke University is NOT immune from discrimination suits. You are an idiot.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder states that because Duke University is a "so-called" private institution, my discrimination lawsuit was dismissed.; August 20, 2013 at 7:52 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Sid -- Heather Mercer's case was a Title IX discrimination suit. Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance.

In your instance, you violated Duke's solicitation policy and were asked to leave. Duke, as a private institution, has the right to establish and enforce it's policies as it sees fit.

As an institution that receives federal money it must follow title IX guidelines.

Consider yourself enlightened.; August 20, 2013 at 8:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Your case was dismissed because, as a private institution, Duke had the right to establish certain policies around solicitation. And you violated those policies. Period. You draw a false conclusion. It was the exemption status of the University that was the grounds for the action taken in your case; you violated a policy that the private institution had a right to make and enforce. A halfwit can see the difference.
If you will re-read the ruling in your case against Duke, there is very clear explanation as to the reason you case was thrown out.; August 20, 2013 at 8:53 AM
Anonymous said...: my error.....it was NOT the exemptioin status of the university that was the basis for the decision to toss your case. It was the policy you violated....the university has the right to establish non solicitation policies and you violated them.; August 20, 2013 at 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: you case has nothing, zero, in common with Mercer, dumbass. Mercer was a Title IX case. Do you not even understand the fundamentals of Title IX?
Nifong will NEVER EVER get his law license back, unless, of course, he wants to practice law in Thailand or Botswana... might have a shot there.; August 20, 2013 at 8:57 AM
A Lawyer said...: A Lawyer and Walt,
What I am saying is this. Heather Sue Mercer had her day in court. I did not. Just because I am an African American and a supporter of Mike Nifong does not mean that I should be deprived of my day in court. Seeking justice and being vexatious are two entirely different things.

You had your day in court. You lost, just like the unindicted Duke students who sued Linwood Wilson just lost.

Can either of you explain why Mercer's discrimination case was heard in court by a jury, and mine was tossed out allegedly because Duke University is immune from discrimination suits?

Numerous posters have already explained this to you: she sued under Title 9 and you did not.

So regardless of the merits of a complaint, you believe that a case should be dismissed unless the plaintiff is represented by a high-powered lawyer... Right?

No one is saying that. But if you had hired a competent lawyer (not necessarily high-powered, just competent), he or she might have been able to craft a legally-valid claim against Duke. By representing yourself, you filed a claim that was legally baseless. You now have to live with the consequences.

To draw an analogy with medicine, no law requires me to go to a doctor, but if I try to perform a vasectomy on myself with a steak knife, the consequences may not be optimal.

You have the right to represent yourself in court, but the results will not be optimal for you. For that very reason, I have urged you to seek a lawyer to advise you about your new lawsuit before you get sanctioned.; August 20, 2013 at 9:52 AM
Anonymous said...: the meeting you attended at Duke, tho open to the public, was not a meeting conducted IN PUBLIC, IN a public setting. It was conducted on private property, sidney. Can you not grasp something as simple as this? A garage sale in my front yard is 'open to the public" but conducted on my private property. The University has the right to have you removed from its private property because you violated their policy. You can argue till hell freezes over........you are wrong and , when hell is frozen solid, you will still be wrong.; August 20, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"A Lawyer and Walt,
What I am saying is this. Heather Sue Mercer had her day in court. I did not. Just because I am an African American and a supporter of Mike Nifong does not mean that I should be deprived of my day in court. Seeking justice and being vexatious are two entirely different things."

You were not deprived of anything because you were not entitled to a day in court in the first place. You were not entitled to a day in court because you did not have a case.

"Can either of you explain why Mercer's discrimination case was heard in court by a jury, and mine was tossed out allegedly because Duke University is immune from discrimination suits?"

I am neither Walt nor A Lawyer. I say again, your case did not get to court because it was frivolous.; August 20, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"So regardless of the merits of a complaint, you believe that a case should be dismissed unless the plaintiff is represented by a high-powered lawyer... Right?"

You are presuming your case had merit. It did not. That was why your case was dismissed. If you had a lawyer, that lawyer would have told you your case had no merit. I suspect you did not have a lawyer because you did not want to be told your case had no merit.; August 20, 2013 at 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

What you seem to be presuming is that because you are African American and a Nifong Supporter(which is like being an athletic supporter for a eunuch), your case should have been pre judged to have merit.

The court system does not work that way. Ask Professor Coleman if you do not believe me.; August 20, 2013 at 11:09 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I am not a publicity seeker..."

Yes you are.

"I have no desire to draw attention to myself."

Yes you do.

"I am a truth and justice seeker."

It is res ipsa loquitur that you are not.; August 20, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder states that because Duke University is a "so-called" private institution, my discrimination lawsuit was dismissed."

Which means you can not barge onto a private institution, violate their rules and then claim discrimination when that institution tries to enforce its rules.

That is what happened when you filed your original frivolous lawsuit against Duke.; August 20, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

At least your thinking shows this consistency.

Crystal feels she is a victim. So she must be presumed to be a victim.

You feel your rights were violated. So the justice system must presume, without any proof, that you were subjected to discrimination.

It doesn't work that way.

As I have said before, uncorroborated allegations(like your allegation that there is a carpetbagger jihad) are proof of nothing.; August 20, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 20, 2013 at 8:57 AM

"Nifong will NEVER EVER get his law license back, unless, of course, he wants to practice law in Thailand or Botswana... might have a shot there."

Why would either Thailand or Botswana want Nifong to practice there?; August 20, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"So regardless of the merits of a complaint, you believe that a case should be dismissed unless the plaintiff is represented by a high-powered lawyer... Right?"

Rephrase:

Irrelevant question.

Your case had no merit. So whether or not you had a lawyer, it never would have gotten to court.; August 20, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Anonymous said...: good point , poster. I didn't mean to insult Thailand or Botswana. my bad....; August 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "A Lawyer and Walt,
What I am saying is this. Heather Sue Mercer had her day in court. I did not. Just because I am an African American and a supporter of Mike Nifong does not mean that I should be deprived of my day in court. Seeking justice and being vexatious are two entirely different things."

You lost that case for good cause. Now, by your own admission, you are trying to relitigate the same issues. By definition that is both vexatious and frivolous.

"Can either of you explain why Mercer's discrimination case was heard in court by a jury, and mine was tossed out allegedly because Duke University is immune from discrimination suits?"

A Lawyer just did, but allow me to expand. You filed suit against Brodhead, Levi and Duke University alleging a violation of your First Amendment Rights, etc.... Generally, the constitution does not apply to relationships between private people and private institutions or businesses. Rather the constitution regulates the realtionship between people and government. However, the congress has the power to pass laws that extend certain constitutional protections to the relationship between individuals and the relationship between individuals and organizations. Using that power, the congress passed Section 1983 which provides protection of free speech rights when a private citizen or business (and Duke is a business for purposes of section 1983) limited to those circumstances where the private person or business is exercising some state power. You failed to allege, let alone prove that Duke, Brodhead or Levi were exercising some state power, thus your case was dismissed. You would know this if you had read the opinion issued by the District Court. (Again, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and ascribing this failure to your lazy approach to everything. It could be that you are intentionally misrepresenting the facts as others have accused you in the past.)

The difference between your case and Mercer's is, as I pointed out above, Mercer sued under Title IX which involves discrimination based on sex and the receipt of federal funds. You did not allege either, nor do the facts of your claim fit under Title IX. That is the difference. If you persist in alleging some sort of similarity between your case and Mercer's, that will be proof that you are, as others have already alleged, misrepresenting the facts.

Walt-in-Durham; August 20, 2013 at 1:32 PM
Walt said...: BTW, Sid, there is no immunity involved. You just failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mercer did state a claim. A good one at that.

Walt-in-Durham; August 20, 2013 at 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...: res ipsa loquitur

res ipsa loquitur

res ipsa loquitur

Case closed, end of discussion; August 20, 2013 at 3:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Three scumbags took target practice on a young white male this week, murdering him, with a shot in his back...with an illegal handgun......"for the fun of it, because we were bored".
OK, racist liar, preach to us about how these asshats did this because the evil white oppressor made them do it. Or, perhaps they did it in self defense.....; August 21, 2013 at 4:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Fakten sprechen für sich; August 21, 2013 at 4:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Well, let's see......Zimmerman, handgun was legal. Three scum who shot the Aussie had an illegal gun. Did Zimmerman shoot Martin in the back, as Martin was running away? Nope. Did Zimmerman shoot Martin "for the fun of it"? Nope.
Oh, but, hey, racist harr........I betcha you just cannot wait to tell us all about how these three dirtbags had a rough life caused by white people. Or, maybe we are gonna hear more hurl-inducing crap from you about how the Aussie probably asked for getting shot in the back by yelling the "n" word at them. (by the way, the Aussie kid never even saw these guys) But, hey, hard, let us know when Jesse gets back from visiting his criminal son in prison so we can all listen to the bullshit; August 21, 2013 at 6:06 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Three scumbags took target practice on a young white male this week, murdering him, with a shot in his back...with an illegal handgun......"for the fun of it, because we were bored".
OK, racist liar, preach to us about how these asshats did this because the evil white oppressor made them do it. Or, perhaps they did it in self defense.....

I no more condone senseless violence that do you. I'm not going to preach to the choir.; August 21, 2013 at 6:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder states that because Duke University is a "so-called" private institution, my discrimination lawsuit was dismissed."

Which means you can not barge onto a private institution, violate their rules and then claim discrimination when that institution tries to enforce its rules.

That is what happened when you filed your original frivolous lawsuit against Duke.

First of all I did not barge in... I was invited to an event on campus that was open to the public.

Second, do you actually believe there is a rule that prohibits people from handing out their business card and inviting the recipient to visit his website?

Duke University targeted me because I am a Nifong supporter.; August 21, 2013 at 7:01 AM
Anonymous said...: You were soliciting, harr. period. you violated policy. your case got thrown out of court. You got your butt admonished by the judge for using absolutely crude and inappropriate language in your suit. you made an ass of yourself and then whined about it, hoping to get some money out of duke. we ALL know the kind of person you are........; August 21, 2013 at 7:28 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNET HARR:

"I no more condone senseless violence that do you. I'm not going to preach to the choir."

Yet you condone the violence committed by Shan Carter(he provoked a confrontation with another man and then shot him and an innocent bystander dead) as self defense.; August 21, 2013 at 7:50 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNY HARR:

"First of all I did not barge in... I was invited to an event on campus that was open to the public."

So I got that wrong. You were invited on to Duke's campus. Then you violated Duke's policy on solicitation. Not very gracious on your part.

Second, do you actually believe there is a rule that prohibits people from handing out their business card and inviting the recipient to visit his website?"

Duke did have a rule. It is their anti solicitation policy. You actually believe you can flaunt rules if they inconvenience you.

"Duke University targeted me because I am a Nifong supporter."

You have not established that as fact. Your uncorroborated allegations do not add up to fact. You took advantage of the situation because you thought you could shake down Duke for big bucks.; August 21, 2013 at 7:56 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Neither race baiter al nor race baiter jesse commented on the shooting of the Australian young man. Was it because two of the killers were black? Do you think race baiter al did the right thing by not condemning the killing?; August 21, 2013 at 7:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh, I get it........a multi-convicted drug dealing felon murders a little boy....and, ooooweeeee, sidney wants him out on the streets, shuckin and jiving his drugs again, killing somebody else.
Three dirtbags shoot a guy, in the back, and silence from harr, jesse, al, obama, and all the rest of the racist hypocrites.; August 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: My grandfather told me that there are white people, crackers, trailer trash, honkies, hillbillies and "such". (as he would say). He also told me there were black people and niggers and "such". He said there were hispanic people, and spics and wetbacks and "such". And, he said there were "Asians" (his word), and chinks, slopes, japs, and slants.
His point was that there are people, of EVERY race, that (in his opinion and experience) deserve to be called some of the "racist" names that get used........while are people, of EVERY race, that do NOT deserve those names.
I agree with him.; August 21, 2013 at 9:42 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Second, do you actually believe there is a rule that prohibits people from handing out their business card and inviting the recipient to visit his website?"

There was at the time of your first law suit and for all times relevant to this litigation because you failed to allege or prove there was not and you lost the case. So it does not matter if Duke did or did not have a policy, you fouled up that issue.

"Duke University targeted me because I am a Nifong supporter."

By your own admission, your claim did not and does not fall under Section 1983. Supporters of Nifong are not protected by Section 1983.

Walt-in-Durham; August 21, 2013 at 9:46 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You say you do not condone violence. Your latest flog says that Shan Carter was not responsible for growing up as a crack dealing felon. You are condoning his behavior.; August 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Once again, sidney.......the meeting was open to the public. It was not held in a public place. It was held on private property. You violated Duke policy, dumbass.
I have personally witnessed people being escorted off Duke property for doing just the very same thing. You cannot go on their campus and willfully violated their policies and then piss and moan about being black or loving Nifong. Duke does NOT care what you think about Nifong, sweetie. You are NOT that important.....; August 21, 2013 at 9:55 AM
A Lawyer said...: First of all I did not barge in... I was invited to an event on campus that was open to the public.

Second, do you actually believe there is a rule that prohibits people from handing out their business card and inviting the recipient to visit his website?

Duke University targeted me because I am a Nifong supporter.

You may or may not have been able to prove that Duke treated you differently from others, but you didn't get a chance to try because you sued under section 1983, which doesn't apply to private institutions such as Duke. If you had hired a lawyer to prepare your lawsuit, you might have sued under a theory which had some legal viability.; August 21, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: maybe duke could hand out a list of rules to any visitors to their privately owned places so that all can be assured of achieving the most gracious behavior possible and not be subject to getting their asses kicked off duke's ungracious places; August 21, 2013 at 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Actually, there are non solicitation policies widely available from Duke and, of course, Sidney knows this damn well. He was looking to draw attention to himself and then shake down duke. nothing more, nothing less........just like his little friend, Mangum, who was looking to shake down Duke students she thought would pay up.; August 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: And by the way, as a private institution, duke does have the right to have people removed from its premises. I have seen them do it at sports events, on the Quad, on the grounds, etc. and thank goodness they do.; August 21, 2013 at 11:25 AM
Anonymous said...: where are the non solicitation policies listed or posted on duke for visitors to see?

how did Dr. Harr know about the policy before he handed out business cards?; August 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM

The comment is irrelevant. SIDNEY was told he was in violation of Duke's non solicitation policy and refused to comply.

You can find Duke's policy by googling "Duke University non solicitation policy. That's what I did.; August 21, 2013 at 12:01 PM
Anonymous said...: so the cop came up to him and told him that he was in violation of the non solicitation policy and to stop solicitation immediately OR leave, or did they tell him to stop AND leave?

when duke kicks people off their property do they then provide them with the information on how to NOT receive their services again if they so desire - or is it to be assumed that duke will not kill people whom they find in contempt of their dukeness or other politically or monetary or arbitrary dearly held beliefs or practices or disregard for anything other than that or something else non-duke-ness; August 21, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Anonymous said...: poster 12:16 needs his meds adjusted....
Harr's case was thrown out of court. Go back and read the blistering commentary from the judge who basically kicked Harr's obnoxious butt .....telling him to knock off the language. harr never had a case in the first place. he was being his usual obnoxious self on private property and got his ass removed. Good for Duke!!!!
Reminds me of good old bigot Victoria when she got her butt thrown out of court for being obnoxious.; August 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM
Anonymous said...: so duke kicks people off its property for being obnoxious in their eyes, is that what you are saying?

is being obnoxious against the law?

and your recommendation for being well aware of the fact that the death of Mr. Daye is in dispute - a possible retaliatory murder on the part of dukes hands - and duke will blow someone's head off at the front door of their hospital if the person is committing such suspicious activity as panhandling (cause he's poor and his baby is in the hospital and the guy is probably starving getting ready to have a diabetic type stress reaction from no food, a sick baby, and lord knows what else - but getting his head blown off at the front door of dukes hospital is cure for that) - and cops who rape people and have their fellow cops and administrators chuckle and laugh hurmoursly at that - and being well aware of all that plus a multitude of other malicious acts by duke as part of their very policy - and I'M the one that needs meds if I am suspicious of duke and do not trust their services ... or their meds .......; August 21, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 21, 2013 at 12:16 PM

"so the cop came up to him and told him that he was in violation of the non solicitation policy and to stop solicitation immediately OR leave, or did they tell him to stop AND leave?"

Meaningless sophistry.

"when duke kicks people off their property do they then provide them with the information on how to NOT receive their services again if they so desire - or is it to be assumed that duke will not kill people whom they find in contempt of their dukeness or other politically or monetary or arbitrary dearly held beliefs or practices or disregard for anything other than that or something else non-duke-ness"

Stupid, meaningless babble.; August 21, 2013 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 21, 2013 at 12:47 PM

"so duke kicks people off its property for being obnoxious in their eyes, is that what you are saying?"

That is wht you are saying.

"is being obnoxious against the law?"

You are implying that it is against the law to object to someone being obnoxious on your own property. According to you, you have no legal recourse against anyone using your property in a way to which you object. The law does not work that way.

"and your recommendation for being well aware of the fact that the death of Mr. Daye is in dispute - a possible retaliatory murder on the part of dukes hands"

Provide evidence that Duke killed Reginald Daye. What SIDNEY provided is not evidence.

"and duke will blow someone's head off at the front door of their hospital if the person is committing such suspicious activity as panhandling (cause he's poor and his baby is in the hospital and the guy is probably starving getting ready to have a diabetic type stress reaction from no food, a sick baby, and lord knows what else - but getting his head blown off at the front door of dukes hospital is cure for that) - and cops who rape people and have their fellow cops and administrators chuckle and laugh hurmoursly at that - and being well aware of all that plus a multitude of other malicious acts by duke as part of their very policy - and I'M the one that needs meds if I am suspicious of duke and do not trust their services ... or their meds ......."

An irrelevant, meaningless straw fisherman holding up a red herring. Nothing more.; August 21, 2013 at 1:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 21, 2013 at 12:47 PM:

"so duke kicks people off its property for being obnoxious in their eyes, is that what you are saying?

is being obnoxious against the law?"

If someone is on your private property being obnoxious you do have a legal right to have that person removed from your property.

Even if the person is not being obnoxious. if he/she is on your property and will not vacate your property when you instruct him/her to do so, you have a legal right to have that person removed.; August 21, 2013 at 1:27 PM
Walt said...: A Lawyer makes a good point: " If you had hired a lawyer to prepare your lawsuit, you might have sued under a theory which had some legal viability."

Not only did Sid file under the wrong statute, but he pointedly refused to sue the one person who did act under color of state law, the DUPD officer. We have a situation where the litigant deliberately filed under a portion of the law that does not apply and took affirmative steps to avoid naming as a defendant, the one person who at least could have brought the suit into the statute. A douple failure on Sid's part.

He then got to litigate the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where he lost at every turn. Now in violation of the law of res judicata he wants to try again still using the wrong statute! Not just frivolous and vexatious but insane as well. (What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and expecting a different result.) This will not end well for Sid.

Walt-in-Durham; August 21, 2013 at 2:11 PM
Anonymous said...: thank you for the refresher, walt. I thought I remembered you telling sidney something about that .......just couldn't remember what you said.
he is getting worse, isn't he. sad......; August 21, 2013 at 3:06 PM
Anonymous said...: why would you call someone expressing their feelings of distrust and nonacceptance of the malicious and illigal actions of an organization that causes great and irreparable harm to many a straw man argument or a red herring?

that makes absolutely no sense; August 21, 2013 at 3:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 21, 2013 at 3:16 PM

"why would you call someone expressing their feelings of distrust and nonacceptance of the malicious and illigal actions of an organization that causes great and irreparable harm to many a straw man argument or a red herring?"

Because you are making a specious argument based on conjecture and speculation which have no basis in fact. It IS a straw fisherman holding up a red herring.; August 21, 2013 at 3:50 PM
Anonymous said...: oh, i see

so, since durham / duke judicial system is so fracked up to the point where these allegations exist,

but people like you insist that they don't because of various reasons,

yet because of the fracked up system that cannot be accessed due to lack of viable lawyers, judges, and da's, sbi, etc. by any to insure a balance of power with duke in durham and to prove or disprove these serious allegations,

that distrusting durham / duke / and the system is not based on the fact of the obvious and clear presentation and existance of this fracked up system that cannot be trusted to deliver services that do not harm in malicious and intentional and professionally negligent manners ...

yeah right; August 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM

"oh, i see

so, since durham / duke judicial system is so fracked up to the point where these allegations exist,

but people like you insist that they don't because of various reasons,"

Whatever allegations exist, there is no evidence to support them. That means the allegations are worthless.

"yet because of the fracked up system that cannot be accessed due to lack of viable lawyers, judges, and da's, sbi, etc. by any to insure a balance of power with duke in durham and to prove or disprove these serious allegations,"

An example of an allegation not supported by any facts.

"that distrusting durham / duke / and the system is not based on the fact of the obvious and clear presentation and existance of this fracked up system that cannot be trusted to deliver services that do not harm in malicious and intentional and professionally negligent manners ..."

There is no evidence of the existence of this "fracked up system". There are also no facts to support of a system "that cannot be trusted to deliver services that do not harm in malicious and intentional and professionally negligent manners ...".

"yeah right"

What is right is you are making up things as you go along.

How about you present some facts.; August 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM
Anonymous said...: your's are generally straw men arguments, because all you do is argue that facts that are in question have not been proven even when the fact in question is that facts in question cannot be proven because the durham / duke system is so fracked up that there is a website called justice for nifong with dr. harr at the helm and we are currently discussing his latest attempt at addressing a fracked up system that he cannot seem to muster justice from - but that to you is not a fact at how fracked up the durham / duke system is ...

that, my comrade in durham / duke madness (no matter what side or no side you are on), is definitely a straw man argument.; August 21, 2013 at 5:26 PM
A Lawyer said...: Anonymous,
What does your anti-Duke diatribe have to do with the merits of Dr. Harr's lawsuit?

If you sue someone and lose, and appeal all the way to the Supreme Court and still lose, the case is over, whether the decision was right or wrong. (As it happens, the decision in Dr. Harr's case was right, because he foolishly sued under the wrong statute. But that doesn't matter.)

If you could keep suing over and over because you didn't like the outcome, litigation would never end.; August 21, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Anonymous said...: 5:26, have you ever heard of punctuation, sentence construction and fundamental grammar? Your writing is fracked.; August 21, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous said...: that is not what i was talking about per se - and why do you consistently ignore the complaint of the fact that there are no lawyers to assist with cases against duke in order to provide a constitutionally guaranteed equal protection and civil human rights environment for all people in durham court system or with duke (or nc and higher probably because of duke)

why is that?; August 21, 2013 at 5:44 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/is-sidney-harrs-crusade-for-crystal-mangum-backfiring/Content?oid=3700005

"Despite Harr's reputation as a public gadfly and Nifong's biggest supporter, most people know little about the man and his motivations. It is not well-known that after going broke in California, he bounced around with his wife, leaving a trail of sensational lawsuits marked by paranoia. Between 1985 and 1997, Harr was a party to at least 27 lawsuits in California, Arizona and Ohio. He sought hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation for civil rights violations, employment discrimination and fraud."

And:

"One day in 1996, Dwight James, a doctor running a clinic for low-income patients in Indio, Calif., received unwelcome news. A county judge had issued an injunction stripping him of control of the clinic. In court, James learned that staff physician Sidney Harr had presented the judge with a contract ostensibly signed by James agreeing to sell a portion of the clinic to Harr for a dollar.

'He forged my signature pretty good," James said on the phone from California, explaining that he never saw or signed the contract. "He thought he could bamboozle us. And he got pretty close.'"

There is more in there detailing SIDNEY's career as a physician. It seems he has compiled a long history of filing frivolous lawsuits and demanding exorbitant settlements.; August 21, 2013 at 5:57 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

More from the url I cited:

"Attorney Anthony Bestard, who once represented Harr, said his client lived an opulent lifestyle. Harr invited him to stay for a weekend at his luxury condo in Rancho Mirage while he was away, he said. As Bestard and his children played in the pool, he recalled, managers escorted them off the premises because Harr had been evicted. "I felt like persona non grata," he said. (Harr unsuccessfully sued Bestard, claiming he'd leased the apartment and reneged on the rent.)

In another suit, Harr's former boss at a West Virginia E.R. wrote that Harr's "paranoid behavior interfered with his ability to work and see patients." The paranoia "became progressively more pronounced when he was here."

Harr called the remarks libelous and demanded $110 million in damages."; August 21, 2013 at 6:34 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Do you really think you had a career as a distinguished physician.

After read the Indy article, I believe you spent most of your career using your ethnicity to exploit your ethnicity to try and shake down people for money.; August 21, 2013 at 6:37 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "why do you consistently ignore the complaint of the fact that there are no lawyers to assist with cases against duke in order to provide a constitutionally guaranteed equal protection and civil human rights environment

Yours is a specious argument, as there have been lawyers who have won cases against Duke (Sid even identified one, Heather Mercer, here).

Duke also lost it's case against one of Sid's favorite people, Dr. KC Johnson, when trying to subpoena unpublished and confidential information.

I could, of course, go on. I suspect, however, these examples would fall on deaf ears.; August 21, 2013 at 6:47 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You once claimed there was a trunped up criminal charge against you. Was that the situation in which the owner of the clinic where you worked convinced the court that you had forged his name to a contract that gave you ownership of the clonic for $1?; August 21, 2013 at 7:09 PM
Anonymous said...: deaf ears indeed

go ahead - i'm listening intently

what other lawsuits have been won by nonduke or nc citizens against duke?

were the lawyers nonduke people and would you recommend them and why?; August 21, 2013 at 9:00 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 9:00 PM wrote: "deaf ears indeed

go ahead - i'm listening intently...."

Just two days ago the NC Court of Appeals ruled in favor of two NC citizens against Duke in Robinson v. Duke University Health System, et. al., NO. COA12-1239 (2013). Do your research before you make a specious argument.

Walt-in-Durham; August 21, 2013 at 9:48 PM
Anonymous said...: wtf

are you people just generally mean to people who take offense to duke's malicious behavior - wtf is your problem where you have to keep attacking me?; August 21, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 21, 2013 at 9:52 PM

"are you people just generally mean to people who take offense to duke's malicious behavior - wtf is your problem where you have to keep attacking me?"

What malicious behavior? You have documented nonE; August 22, 2013 at 5:07 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Here is the link again:

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/is-sidney-harrs-crusade-for-crystal-mangum-backfiring/Content?oid=3700005; August 22, 2013 at 5:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Hooray for the Indy. At last we have documentation that what most of us have suspected for years is, in fact, true. Harr is racist. Harr is deceitful. Harr files malicious suits, trying the shakedown. Harr is pathetic.; August 22, 2013 at 6:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Read the article in the Indy and found it to be enlightening as to Harr's history, motivation, track record, racism, lack of integrity and manipulation. Maybe he has rough spots in his life. Maybe. But who hasn't? Sounds to me like he has made a career...not out of healing but out of cheating, using and trying to con the very legal system he claims to care so passionately about. Kinda ironic, don't you think. Shame on you, harr. Shame on you; August 22, 2013 at 6:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Oh, I get it........a multi-convicted drug dealing felon murders a little boy....and, ooooweeeee, sidney wants him out on the streets, shuckin and jiving his drugs again, killing somebody else.
Three dirtbags shoot a guy, in the back, and silence from harr, jesse, al, obama, and all the rest of the racist hypocrites.

It is understood the Jesse, Al, the President, and I all abhor the senseless killing of the unarmed jogger. We have no doubt that the perpetrators will receive justice that is due them... therefore, why raise our voices about it. It is when justice is not fairly meted out that I speak up.; August 22, 2013 at 7:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
And by the way, as a private institution, duke does have the right to have people removed from its premises. I have seen them do it at sports events, on the Quad, on the grounds, etc. and thank goodness they do.

Are you saying that North Carolina State, being a public institution, does not have the right to remove people from it's premises?; August 22, 2013 at 7:47 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Anonymous August 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM

The comment is irrelevant. SIDNEY was told he was in violation of Duke's non solicitation policy and refused to comply.

You can find Duke's policy by googling "Duke University non solicitation policy. That's what I did.

Wrong-O. I was first notified that I "violated" a solicitation policy a little over a month after I was discrminated against. The notification came in a letter from Michael Schoenfeld, a spokesman for Duke University. At the time of the event, I asked the security guard why I was being kicked off the campus and he told me that he did not know why. It's all on audio-record.

Schoenfeld's statement was the best excuse they could come up with.; August 22, 2013 at 7:51 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Sid -- Of course the anonymous poster isn't saying that. Please look up the definition of "straw man fallacy".; August 22, 2013 at 7:56 AM
Walt said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 22, 2013 at 8:11 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Are you saying that North Carolina State, being a public institution, does not have the right to remove people from it's premises?"

Talk about a straw man argument. Sid, you invoked Section 1983 in your argument that your civil rights had been violated. The poster was replying to your Section 1983 argument. The problem with straw man arguments is they are easly dispatched.

Sid wrote: "Wrong-O. I was first notified that I "violated" a solicitation policy a little over a month after I was discrminated against."

There you go with the falsehoods again. You have admitted that you were discriminated against because of your advocacy for Nifong. That is an admission that your claim is not covered by Section 1983 or any other civil rights law. By definition frivolous and vexatios.

Walt-in-Durham; August 22, 2013 at 8:13 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"It is understood the Jesse, Al, the President, and I all abhor the senseless killing of the unarmed jogger. We have no doubt that the perpetrators will receive justice that is due them... therefore, why raise our voices about it. It is when justice is not fairly meted out that I speak up."

Bullshit! You, race baiter al, race baiter jesse do not speak up unless you can stir up black animosity towards white people. It is pathetic that our President throws in with the most virulent race baiters in the USA.; August 22, 2013 at 8:58 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

I add, you have never fought for justice in your life. You have spent your life using your ethnicity as a means of extorting money from others under the fiction of fighting for justice.; August 22, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Regarding Mr. Obama, I say this again. He said 35 years ago he might have been shot and killed. What he did not say is that the probability is, if he had been shot and killed 35 years ago, the shooter would have been neither a white man nor an hispanic man nor a neighborhood watchman. The shooter would most likely have been a black man.

Further, 45 years ago, I might have wound up like the Australian citizen who was gunned down because 3 black teenagers were bored. Mr. Obama does not seem to think that kind of situation is important.

He has aligned himself with the most virulent race baiters in America.; August 22, 2013 at 9:05 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 9:00 AM makes a good point when he wrote: "SIDNEY HARR:

I add, you have never fought for justice in your life. You have spent your life using your ethnicity as a means of extorting money from others under the fiction of fighting for justice."

I would add that Harr has squandered his life fighting to perpetuate injustice.

Walt-in-Durham; August 22, 2013 at 9:31 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Hooray for the Indy. At last we have documentation that what most of us have suspected for years is, in fact, true. Harr is racist. Harr is deceitful. Harr files malicious suits, trying the shakedown"....... When you take an unpopular stand and try to seek justice, you open yourself up to your critics and opponents dredging up irrelevant stuff from your past, in a desperate attempt to discredit your present efforts. This phenomena has happened to Dr. Harr to Rev. Sharpton to Rev. Jackson and even to Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. I wager an "Indy" like exposé could be written about any one of us and especially about those of us who have championed unpopular causes which critics hope to discredit. I can guarantee you that if I were to hand out scores of my business cards at Duke sponsored function, I would not be asked to leave the campus or be accused of violating Duke's anti-soliciting regulations. Dr. Harr was singled out for discrimination because of his unpopular stands.; August 22, 2013 at 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"When you take an unpopular stand and try to seek justice, you open yourself up to your critics and opponents dredging up irrelevant stuff from your past, in a desperate attempt to discredit your present efforts."

True. However, SIDNEY has never taken a stand for a meaningful unpopular cause. I say again, SIDNEY has used his ethnicity to shake down people for money, and that is fighting for himself, putting his own well being above justice, just like corrupt DA NIFONG did when Crystal falsely accused innocent men of raping her.

"This phenomena has happened to Dr. Harr"

No it didn't. Sidney has never stood up for any significant cause on behalf of justice.

"to Rev. Sharpton to Rev. Jackson"

So when is using things like the phony Duke rape case, the phony Tawana Brawley rape case, George Zimmerman's defending himself against deadly force, to stir up racial animosity a worthy cause?

"and even to Rev. Martin Luther King Jr."

Yes, a lot of bigots disliked Dr. King. It is blasphemy, however, that you and SIDNEY, who are arch bigots for the cause of racial strife, would invoke his name.

"I wager an "Indy" like exposé could be written about any one of us and especially about those of us who have championed unpopular causes which critics hope to discredit."

Perhaps. However, you neglect to mention that the unpopular cause you espouse is to have innocent men convicted of raping false rape accuser Crystal Mangum.

"I can guarantee you that if I were to hand out scores of my business cards at Duke sponsored function, I would not be asked to leave the campus or be accused of violating Duke's anti-soliciting regulations."

That would be a bet you would lose, if you continued to do it after being directed to stop.

"Dr. Harr was singled out for discrimination because of his unpopular stands."

So you and SIDNEY would like to believe. You are both totally divorced from reality.; August 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Bravo, Walt!!!; August 22, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Are you saying that North Carolina State, being a public institution, does not have the right to remove people from it's premises?"

What you are trying to say is that Duke, a private institution, does not have the right to remove you from its premises. That implies that no one has the right to evict you from his/her private property, no matter how obnoxiously you behave.; August 22, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

You seem to believe SIDNEY's attempt to steal his employer's business was a fight for justice?

HUH!!!!????; August 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Google the name Perry McKinnon.

Race baiter al was pushing the lie that Tawana Brawley had been raped while knowing it was a lie.

How is pushing a phony inter racial rape doing the right thing?; August 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Harr is nothing but a common con, shyster and race hustler. We had somebody just like him at work....only her "hook" was not her race. In her case, she repeatedly claimed that employers, neighbors, innocent people caused her to hurt herself. The woman had countless injuries, none real, all designed to pay. And she sometimes got a little money........just to go away. Harr is just the same....despicable. He has a better hook though because he can drag out the doctor credential as his cover. But a pig in a silk dress is still a pig. I'm just glad that more people can and will know him for exactly what he is.; August 22, 2013 at 12:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, Frazier is out as football coach at NCCU for getting himself arrested again. Nice guy. I wonder if Cline would like to be his lawyer......; August 22, 2013 at 12:39 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal said:
"I can guarantee you that if I were to hand out scores of my business cards at Duke sponsored function, I would not be asked to leave the campus or be accused of violating Duke's anti-soliciting regulations."

How can you guarantee it? Have you been there? Are you going there?; August 22, 2013 at 1:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Troll boy has business cards? For what kind of business? Lemonade stand in Dubai? Selling used hockey pucks? Bodyguarding for Mangum?
I would love to see troll boy at Duke, handing out his little cards. That would be high class entertainment.....; August 22, 2013 at 1:52 PM
Anonymous said...: what exactly would be high class about it? it what? him getting thrown off duke for soliciting?

from what i understand, Dr. Harr was thrown off duke cuz the cops were told to get rid of him - not because he was soliciting - that one had to be figured out by others who did not actually escort him off the campus - to get rid of him; August 22, 2013 at 3:37 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "what exactly would be high class about it? it what? him getting thrown off duke for soliciting?"....... Get real. All Universities have similar policies. These policies are designed to protect students from being solicited by businesses like credit card companies, insurance companies, multi-level marketers, etc. ; not to supress ideas. In this case their law was purposely misapplied to get rid of someone they considered a threat to their reputation. I have not been to Duke University but I suggest anyone there who recognizes that Dr. Harr was discriminated against conduct a test. I don't think the result will come as any surprise even to you who try to defend Duke; August 22, 2013 at 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: indy article uses quotes (why?) from dr who went to prison for dealing drugs. plus they said Harr needed body guards at the clinic. CEO of that clinic wound up killing his own sister and had a cool million in debt??!! Not sure if sources from felons and murderers are credible. Maybe Sid was hanging with the wrong group but that doesnt mean that he was lying or shaking down anyone. Maybe they needed to thrown out. Maybe he was trying to do that? Who knows!; August 22, 2013 at 4:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

My sources describe Sidney's behavior at the Duke lecture a little differently. They suggest that Sidney was thrown off campus because he was acting a bit like an asshole. Much like he does on this blog.

Don't get me wrong. Sidney is not the only asshole who posts here. In fact, most of the posters active here act like assholes. Posters largely trade insults. Walt and Lance are exceptions, along with a few others, but there is little of substance discussed here. You made this same claim when you were defending yourself against claims you're a troll.

As you know, Sidney has encouraged this sort of behavior. Just look at his analysis of Nifong and the lacrosse case. Sidney makes ridiculous claims, pats himself on the back for his courage, provides no evidence to support his claims, refuses to discuss evidence that refutes them, invents all sorts of conspiracies, and then resorts to calling those who disagree with him liars, brainwashed, feeble-minded, etc. in short, he refuses to engage in honest discussion. Several years ago, before you joined, there were a number of posters who tried to conduct a real debate, but Sidney drove most of them away.

Unfortunately, Sidney uses the same style when he is off of this blog. His legal filings contain the same rambling narrative of irrelevant anecdotes. He provides no evidence to support his claim. He ignores the arguments of his opponents. He even resorted to calling the Judge Magistrate a liar. Normal people don't act like when they are supposed to be serious.

My sources tell me Sidney was the same way at Duke. He initiated conversations with his neighbors. Most quickly identified Sidney as being a laughingstock. Some tried to excuse themselves from the conversation, but Sidney persisted. Others, familiar with the facts, came back at him with evidence and arguments. Sidney reacted as he does here, reacting with ad hominem attacks. Some of the other attendees complained to management, pointing him out and providing the business card Sidney had handed out.

I wasn't there, but my sources normally are quite reliable. Moreover, their version of the facts seems consistent with the end result.

Most importantly, Sidney has consistently shown himself to be unreliable. I don't know why anyone should believe his version without confirmation.; August 22, 2013 at 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Is our little buddy mistrail recluse posting here again?; August 22, 2013 at 5:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Mistrail recluse:

Who's your daddy?; August 22, 2013 at 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: who's yours?

wtf?; August 22, 2013 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Get real. All Universities have similar policies. These policies are designed to protect students from being solicited by businesses like credit card companies, insurance companies, multi-level marketers, etc.; not to supress ideas."

Since you have never been on all Universities, you are unqualified to make that statement.

"In this case their law was purposely misapplied to get rid of someone they considered a threat to their reputation."

Here you are presuming to know what Duke's policy was.

"I have not been to Duke University but I suggest anyone there who recognizes that Dr. Harr was discriminated against conduct a test. I don't think the result will come as any surprise even to you who try to defend Duke"

What you got right in that statement is that you "don't think". You presume.; August 22, 2013 at 5:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 22, 2013 at 4:33 PM

"indy article uses quotes (why?) from dr who went to prison for dealing drugs. plus they said Harr needed body guards at the clinic. CEO of that clinic wound up killing his own sister and had a cool million in debt??!! Not sure if sources from felons and murderers are credible. Maybe Sid was hanging with the wrong group but that doesnt mean that he was lying or shaking down anyone. Maybe they needed to thrown out. Maybe he was trying to do that?"

Said indy article had a lot of information from sources other than the clinic doctor.

"Who knows!"

You certainly do not.; August 22, 2013 at 5:58 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Dr. Harr was singled out for discrimination because of his unpopular stands."

Not only have you proven Duke's case against Harr in the first law suit, but you have proven his second is both vexatious and frivolous. If nothing else, we have a new proof of the value of a good legal education.

Walt-in-Durham; August 22, 2013 at 8:10 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "My sources tell me Sidney was the same way at Duke. He initiated conversations with his neighbors. Most quickly identified Sidney as being a laughingstock. Some tried to excuse themselves from the conversation, but Sidney persisted. Others, familiar with the facts, came back at him with evidence and arguments. Sidney reacted as he does here, reacting with ad hominem attacks. Some of the other attendees complained to management, pointing him out and providing the business card Sidney had handed out"..........This is the first time we have heard such a version of Dr. Harr's eviction from Duke from your "normally" reliable sources many months after the fact. It seems totally at odds with Dr. Harr's timely complaint and it does not square with how the encounter came down that Dr. Harr recorded. This case was never adjudicated; August 22, 2013 at 9:16 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "This case was never adjudicated"

There never was a case. You, yourself, admitted that Duke did not violate the law. When there is no violation of the statute, there is no case to adjudicate. You cannot simply make up a cause of action. That is the problem you and Sid have. You don't think the law should apply to you. You think you should be able to force others to do what you want by abusing the courts. That is both selfish and dishonest.

Walt-in-Durham; August 23, 2013 at 3:26 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"This is the first time we have heard such a version of Dr. Harr's eviction from Duke from your 'normally' reliable sources many months after the fact."

This is an interesting comment, coming from someone who says the word of a non existent anonymous witness is proof that Crystal was raped. Kilgo's anonymous Lacrosse player friend has not emerged in over 7 years. Unless he does emerge, he does not exist.

"It seems totally at odds with Dr. Harr's timely complaint and it does not square with how the encounter came down that Dr. Harr recorded. This case was never adjudicated".

SIDNEY HARR is hardly reliable or objective, considering he believes in a non existent carpetbagger jihad(his proof of the jihad is the claim that anyone who does not believe in it has succumbed to a jedi mind trick), considering how he tries to spin Shan Carter's killing of Tyrone Baker and Demetrius Green as self defense.; August 23, 2013 at 4:43 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:43 AM raises a good point: "SIDNEY HARR is hardly reliable or objective,...."

Indeed, in his failed lawsuit against Duke, Sid claimed in his complaint that he sent letters to Brodhead and Dean Levi on April 10, 2010. (Compl. paragraph 10) Yet, if we look at the letters Sid posted on J4n (http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB/irB2.htm) (last visited Apr. 25, 2011) the letters are dated April 12. Sid cannot even be trusted with simple matters such as dates that are easily accessable on his own website.

Walt-in-Durham; August 23, 2013 at 7:09 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

http://therightscoop.com/89-year-old-world-war-ii-veteran-beaten-to-death-by-two-black-teens-in-spokane-wa/:

The assailants were black. Do you think race baiter al or race baiter jesse will speak out? No they will not. They can not stir up black resentment of white people with this kind of killing.

How are you going to spin this as self defense on the part of the assailants?; August 23, 2013 at 9:55 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You seem to be hiding from the revelations about your background.; August 23, 2013 at 11:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "Hooray for the Indy. At last we have documentation that what most of us have suspected for years is, in fact, true. Harr is racist. Harr is deceitful. Harr files malicious suits, trying the shakedown"....... When you take an unpopular stand and try to seek justice, you open yourself up to your critics and opponents dredging up irrelevant stuff from your past, in a desperate attempt to discredit your present efforts. This phenomena has happened to Dr. Harr to Rev. Sharpton to Rev. Jackson and even to Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. I wager an "Indy" like exposé could be written about any one of us and especially about those of us who have championed unpopular causes which critics hope to discredit. I can guarantee you that if I were to hand out scores of my business cards at Duke sponsored function, I would not be asked to leave the campus or be accused of violating Duke's anti-soliciting regulations. Dr. Harr was singled out for discrimination because of his unpopular stands.

Hey, kenhyderal.

You are absolutely correct regarding what happened, and although I was subjected to a one-sided hatchet job, I appreciate the fact that the Indy Week at least broached the subject of Crystal Mangum's case... something with the rest of the mainstream media has refused to do.

They also allowed me a 300 word rebuttal in next week's issue.

Duke University's flimsy excuse for having me kicked off campus was conjured up long after the incident. Their initial intent was to have me arrested... a plot which was foiled when James Coleman came by and interceded on my behalf.; August 23, 2013 at 12:31 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

You seem to be hiding from the revelations about your background.

I have been allotted a 300 word rebuttal that will appear in the next issue of the Indy Week.; August 23, 2013 at 12:32 PM
A Lawyer said...: Dr. Harr was singled out for discrimination because of his unpopular stands.

Even if that were true, it would not be a violation of Section 1983. Which means that the dismissal of Dr. Harr's lawsuit was correct.

Not that that matters, though. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final decision dismissing a lawsuit bars any new lawsuit based on the same facts, regardless of whether the first dismissal was right or wrong.; August 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM
A Lawyer said...: a plot which was foiled when James Coleman came by and interceded on my behalf.

Did you ever ask Prof. Coleman about the merits of your Section 1983 lawsuit? Or about the merits of your current lawsuit?; August 23, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "... and although I was subjected to a one-sided hatchet job..."

What specifically in the article was incorrect that would make this a "hatchet job"?

Perhaps you could give us a preview of the rebuttal before it's submitted to the Indy Week?; August 23, 2013 at 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, kenhyderal.

You are absolutely correct regarding what happened, and although I was subjected to a one-sided hatchet job, I appreciate the fact that the Indy Week at least broached the subject of Crystal Mangum's case... something with the rest of the mainstream media has refused to do."

Now you are again trying to C your racist A.

"They also allowed me a 300 word rebuttal in next week's issue."

You will try to publish at least 3000 words and then sue for racial discrimination when your attempt is denied.

"Duke University's flimsy excuse for having me kicked off campus was conjured up long after the incident."

If anything flimsy was conjured up, it was your spin on what happened.

"Their initial intent was to have me arrested... a plot which was foiled when James Coleman came by and interceded on my behalf."

There was no plot.Professor Coleman has never supported you.; August 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I have been allotted a 300 word rebuttal that will appear in the next issue of the Indy Week."

I could have written up a 300 word rebuttal in a matter of hours and published it on my blog, had I had a blog.

Why haven't you?

You probably did not because you hoped no one would become aware of the Indy week interview.; August 23, 2013 at 1:41 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 4:52 8-22-13 said: "Sidney reacted as he does here, reacting with ad hominem attacks" ............ Talk about projection. Unbelievable. 90% of the posters here 90% of the time use ad hominem attacks on Dr. Harr. Do the math. Duke may of had the legal right to evict Dr.Harr from their property but attempting to suppress the ideas he espouses is disgraceful for an Institution of Higher Learning. Using the fundamentalist strategy of banning those you disagree with regardless of their stridency represents intellectual dishonesty and intellectual cowardice.; August 23, 2013 at 8:49 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Talk about projection. Unbelievable."

Appropriate way for you to describe yourself.

"90% of the posters here 90% of the time use ad hominem attacks on Dr. Harr. Do the math."

Your math is invalid. It is not an ad hominem attack to point out the truths that SIDNEY's career as a physician was most undistinguished and he does not have the qualifications to question Dr. Nichols.

"Duke may of had the legal right to evict Dr.Harr from their property but attempting to suppress the ideas he espouses is disgraceful for an Institution of Higher Learning."

SIDNEY's ideas are equivalent to the ideas Adolf Hitler espoused.

"Using the fundamentalist strategy of banning those you disagree with regardless of their stridency represents intellectual dishonesty and intellectual cowardice."

You are describing the methods by which corrupt DA NIFONG and the gang of 88 and the pot bangers and the race baiters tried to convict the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players of raping Crystal Mangum.

Hypocrite!!!; August 24, 2013 at 3:03 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

To my last quote I add, SIDNEY's so called ideas are motivated by his use of his ethnicity to extort money from other people. That is evident from the Independent Weekly article.

If that kind of idea is what you admire, you are in serious trouble.; August 24, 2013 at 3:05 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sharpton-chris-lane-murder-i-protest-when-i-m-called

Which is more racist BULLSHIT from race baiter al. He did comment on the Chris Lane case because he could not use the case to stir up black animosity towards white people.; August 24, 2013 at 3:13 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

SIDNEY is similar to Adolf Hitler in this respect. He is a singularly untalented individual who turned to race baiting, probably as a compensatory mechanism.; August 24, 2013 at 4:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Correction:

SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sharpton-chris-lane-murder-i-protest-when-i-m-called

Which is more racist BULLSHIT from race baiter al. He DID NOT comment on the Chris Lane case because he could not use the case to stir up black animosity towards white people.

August 24, 2013 at 3:13 AM; August 24, 2013 at 5:23 AM
Anonymous said...: there's no current elections?; August 24, 2013 at 5:32 AM
Anonymous said...: ANONYMOUS 4:18am:

I invoke Godwin's Law. Sidney wins.; August 24, 2013 at 6:13 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Duke may of had the legal right to evict Dr.Harr from their property..."

There is no "may" about it. The issue really is, was Sid's first lawsuit based on any law. It was not. Duke had every right to evict Sid. Then, Sid compounded his error by filing a frivolous lawsuit against Duke, Brodhead and Dean Levi. He did not even attempt to allege facts that would show Brodhead or Levi to be culpable. He just sued them to harass. Then, he complained when they defended themselves. Finally, Sid issued forth a gratuitous series of insults against the U.S. Magistrate for stating fully and plainly the law. Sid had his day in court, many of them, first the Magistrate, then the District Judge, then the Circuit Court of Appeals and last, the U.S. Supreme Court. They all found against him, as they should. Now, Sid has gone forth and filed suit on the same issue. That is abusive.

"but attempting to suppress the ideas he espouses is disgraceful..."

On this point we agree. No matter how inarticulate Sid is, he has every right to espouse his ideas. The problem is, Duke is not a public space for the espousal of ideas. He should have respected that distinction.

Walt-in-Durham; August 24, 2013 at 7:53 AM
Anonymous said...: How can Duke be a private institution with its own set of rules that all have to follow regardless of whether they are aware of them or not and can get kicked off the property with no regard for civil rights which are protected by federal law - when there is a federal law that requires someone to accept Duke's services on their private property if they require emergency medical care within a certain area distance surrounding Duke's private property that is not owned by them?

In other words, how can there be a law requiring someone to have to go from a public space to a private space if they do not want to due to the quality or the price or the administration of the services provided by the private identity if that private identity does not follow federal civil rights law assumed available while in a public space or space not owned by the private identity?

What are the laws that cover this aspect of citizen rights Walt if you do not mind the time and thought into answering. Thank you.; August 24, 2013 at 9:48 AM
kenhyderal said...: I don't think Duke discriminated against Dr.Harr based on race or religion but they did so because of the ideas he espouses; especially those on the subject of The Duke Lacrosse Case. I wonder how Dr.KC Johnson would be treated, these days, if he went onto Duke's Campus and if they would dare to evict him if he was propagandizing.; August 24, 2013 at 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I don't think(that is obvious) Duke discriminated against Dr.Harr based on race or religion but they did so because of the ideas he espouses; especially those on the subject of The Duke Lacrosse Case."

SIDNEY does not espouse ideas. He harbors bias against white people. How deep seted that bias is was revealed in the Indy Week article.

"I wonder how Dr.KC Johnson would be treated, these days, if he went onto Duke's Campus and if they would dare to evict him if he was propagandizing."

Irrelevant. Professor Johnson would not propagandize. He has no need to. Unlike SIDNEY, he is not trying to convince people that innocent men raped Crystal.; August 24, 2013 at 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...: "Now retired, he said money isn't a problem thanks to his medical career."

Then how come he is living in subsidized house at the Carriage House in Raleigh.; August 24, 2013 at 6:49 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 9:48 AM wrote: "What are the laws that cover this aspect of citizen rights Walt if you do not mind the time and thought into answering. Thank you."

Civil rights, in general, regard a person and the government. With regard to other people and other organizations, no one has any civil rights, unless the congress or the state legislature has created them.

In this case, congress has passed a series of laws beginning in 1865 that confer limited civil rights as between individuals and organizations. (Corporations, not for profits, partnerships and proprietorships. Duke is a not for profit corporation.) Sid elected to proceed under section 1983 which confers civil rights where a person or organization is "acting under color of state law." To have a case, Sid needed to allege and subsequently prove that someone at Duke acted under color of state law when he was kicked off campus. He failed to even make such an allegation. Indeed, Duke's trial lawyer broadly hinted at how he might do that, but Sid didn't even attempt to amend his complaint. Worse, Sid wrote on this very site that he did not believe the one person who might have been acting under color of state law did anything wrong. Thus, no case. The Magistrate, the District Judge, the Circuit Court Judges and the Supreme Court Justices were exactly correct to dismiss his lawsuit. Further, he was handled himself very poorly in court by ignoring the very generous hint that Duke's trial counsel gave him.

There are other laws which also apply. The congress has outlawed discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce except private clubs. This applies to Duke. But, Sid never alleged he was discriminated against based on race only on his ideas. (Discrimination based on ideas is still very legal.)

Congress has also outlawed discrimination based on sex in institutions that accept federal support. This of course applies to Duke. Again, Sid did not allege sex discrimination, nor is any indicated in the facts of this case.

I would say that Duke did not violate Sid's civil rights, at least not in the way he set up his case. They were acting within the scope of the law and thus upholding their private property rights which Sid has no right to trample on. Also, as Sid filed the lawsuit against two people that he did not allege any violations of the law against, his initial suit was frivolous from the very beginning.

HTH
Walt-in-Durham; August 24, 2013 at 6:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Thank you again Walt.

That was a good answer, thanks.

Duke is confusing.

So, is the entire of Duke considered a non-profit, including the hospitals, clinics, universities, churches, etc.?

Why do they call themselves a private university when they are a non-profit organization - or this some distiction between the university and the hospital that has legal implications when accessing services at either that are different from the other?; August 24, 2013 at 8:19 PM
A Lawyer said...: Why do they call themselves a private university when they are a non-profit organization

They are a private university because they are not owned or operated by the federal, state or city government. They are a non-profit corporation. That means a private (non-governmental) corporation, but one in which the profits do not go to the owners (as in a for-profit business corporation); instead, all profits are turned back to the charitable/ religious/ educational purpose of the corporation. Non-profit corporations are usually exempt from paying taxes (because they don't earn profits, and operate for an educational, religious or charitable purpose).; August 24, 2013 at 8:52 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 8:19 wrote: "Duke is confusing."

No they are not. Every private university in the country operates exactly the same way, Harvard, Yale, Princeton on down to St. Augustine (in Raleigh)

"So, is the entire of Duke considered a non-profit, including the hospitals, clinics, universities, churches, etc.?"

In general, yes. It certainly has unrelated business income which is taxed but the general rule is it is a non-profit.

When you get into churches, that becomes a murky subject. There are at least one, that I know of, church that uses the Duke name, Duke Memorial United Methodist Church which has no connection to Duke University beyond the name Duke. However, there is a large "chapel" on campus that is owned by Duke University however it has its own IRS tax exempt number. The chapel is not "Methodist" and the pastor is called by Duke University, not the Methodist Bishop of North Carolina. Strange, because the Bishop sits on the board of trustees of Duke University as do several Methodist ministers who are employees of the Bishop.

To add to the mix, there is Duke Power which is a regulated utility in a number of states with un-regulated businesses as well and for good measure a non-profit foundation. None of these entities has anything to do with Duke University beyond the name.

None of this is particularly difficult to discover. Duke's informational returns are open for public inspection, as are all the other non-profits in the U.S. Simply google IRS form 990 and you will get a treasure trove of information about every non-profit in the U.S. subject to reporting. Want to know what your local college spends on research? Look up their form 990.

HTH
Walt-in-Durham; August 25, 2013 at 6:14 AM
Anonymous said...: As a non-profit they proclaim proudly news about the donations they receive and have a goal of amassing (3?) billion dollars in donations by 2017 (?) .

When reports of costs of services of area hospitals are printed in news - Duke is always the hospitals with the highest profit margin and lowest chariatable services to its community based patients.

Why is this?

They do not present themselves like a chariatable not-for profit with goals of education, healthcare, and religion - they act more like a money vacuum with goals of wealth, power, and control (and if you mess with that your dead in their eyes).

Why is this?; August 25, 2013 at 6:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Other things that are confusing about Duke:

Are they using and playing up the we were victimized by (whomever) in order to assist in achieving their 3 billion donation sweeps goal thus adding to the race / gender / sex / rape / violence / chaos and distrust of Duke and the Durham judicial system BAITING and inciting harm societal illness scenerio that is becoming all too common in the USA today in order to achieve those lofty monetary, power, control goals of their own with no concern for health, education or religious freedoms and aspirations?

If Duke were concerned about well-being of anything other than their wealth, power, and control - than achieving that would be inherent in actually achieving health, education, and religious aspirations by being healthy, wise, and compassionately spiritually inclined (versus being wealth, power, control mongers which produces illness, ignorance, and hatred and division inconsistent with lofty religious spiritual type goals). When they have issues and problems like all organizations or people do - if they actually were wise in resolving those issues (like the issues with Dr. Harr) than there would be no problems since they would be consistent with the image they portray (the health, education, religious non-profit) instead of what they actually are (wealth, power, control mongers).
So why don't they?; August 25, 2013 at 7:24 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Anonymous @ 6:19:
'Why is this?"

and again @ 7:24:
"So why don't they?"

Why are you asking these questions here? No one that posts here (that I'm aware of) works for
Duke, so any answer to these would be speculative.

I suggest that if you have legitimate concerns regarding DUMC or Duke University, contact them.

Links to Duke Medicine's administration can be found here.

Duke University's president has his contact information here.

Let us know what you find.; August 25, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm fairly certain that would not give a shister about my concerns nor would they appreciate my calls.

Anyway, I can talk talk about Duke here if I want to - and ask my questions to Walt or A Lawyer or whomever else has a thought on the matter - do you mind???; August 25, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous @12:21: I'm fairly certain that would not give a shister about my concerns ...

What are your concerns? You have never articulated them.; August 25, 2013 at 12:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Well one is that they are killing people with their medicine and medical practices. Even their cops kill people which is in civil dispute.

Two is that they rape people, even the cops rape people, etc.

Three is that they lie about it all and try to cover it all up by destroying the Durham and NC judicial system

Fourth is that Broadhead is not a competent leader and he seems inherently evil.

Fifth would be the confusion they have generated as briefly stated above.

Sixth would be the lacrosse case in its entirety.

7 - they have serious issues with using and abusing NC citizens and use and control the government and all its powers and services in which to do so.

8 - is that they treat patients and their families and students like less than people and only contributors to their coffers and research manipulation dollars which they use to control society through the pharmaceutical companies, politics, media, etc. which are causing harm and ruining the nation in all that they entail as they are.

9 - they use federal money to harm many people and the media to abuse and manipulate many.

This is just for starters - but how to resolve those 9 problems would be interesting to discuss.; August 25, 2013 at 12:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Fourth is that Broadhead is not a competent leader and he seems inherently evil.

I suspect that few posters here will disagree with you on this point.

You may not have picked up on this due to the subtlety, but the nickname "Brod Dickhead" is not intended as an expression of support.

More seriously, KC Johnson at Durham in Wonderland and the site DukeCheck have done a good job in discussing Brodhead's weaknesses. I suggest that you read them for many examples.; August 25, 2013 at 2:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Concern # 10:

Today there is article in local news about 900 people obtaining free dental care after camping out (for some all day and night) in line in order to obtain it. This is because NC ranks 47th in USA of dentist available to citizens and because the cost of care is not covered by insurance or is too expensive for most.

In the comments section someone mentioned how the lack of dental care can cause heart problems for some.

Duke makes millions off of providing heart care services, medicines, and research to NC citizens, who are referred to Duke from across the entire state for heart related issues as a NC practice.

This is just an example of how Duke operates in NC and the harm they do to NC citizens.

It is related to points 7, 8 and 9.; August 25, 2013 at 4:51 PM
A Lawyer said...: This is just an example of how Duke operates in NC and the harm they do to NC citizens.

I read your post three times, and I still fail to see the part where Duke is harming any NC citizens. What is it that Duke is doing wrong?; August 25, 2013 at 8:23 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 12:54 wrote: "Well one is that they are killing people with their medicine and medical practices. Even their cops kill people which is in civil dispute.

Two is that they rape people, even the cops rape people, etc.

Three is that they lie about it all and try to cover it all up by destroying the Durham and NC judicial system...."

Names dates and places. Your list is what people in the business call glittering generalities. Impossible to prove or disprove. To be persuasive, you nave to have names, dates and places.

"Fourth is that Broadhead is not a competent leader and he seems inherently evil."

Well, I do agree with the first portion, Brodhead is not much of a leader although that's a long way from rape, murder and mayhem. But, "inherently evil?" I follow Duke Fact Check and he's never shown Brodhead to be "inherently evil."

Thus, we're back to facts. Dates. Times. Places. Please. In short, stop making allegations and start offering proof. You'll be much more persuasive.

Walt-in-Durham; August 25, 2013 at 9:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Reply to A Lawyer: The connection is that Duke doesn't do anything about it - unless it is to make sure that no bills pass that alleviates the problem of denistry in NC - in fact, although I do not have the proof - I would wager that some Duke affiliated person(s) were/are part of the legislative control of the lack of affordable denistry for NC citizens - in order to insure more patients who suffer from lack of denistry to feed their coffers.

Can I prove it - not personally - if I had a lawyer to assist - probably.

To Walt - I have no intention of proving that at this time in this place. Why would I? I get my news the same as others, and these facts are common knowledge from that. If I had a lawyer to assist, then I might have more interest in proving these things if these things needed proving.; August 25, 2013 at 11:08 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 11:08 PM wrote: "To Walt - I have no intention of proving that at this time in this place. Why would I? I get my news the same as others, and these facts are common knowledge from that. If I had a lawyer to assist, then I might have more interest in proving these things if these things needed proving."

In other words, you cannot post even a single link to one news report. Not persuasive.

Walt-in-Durham; August 26, 2013 at 4:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Of course I could post links if I wanted to go back and find them Walt, but, is that really necessary?

I could list the obvious cases that have been in the news:

When Duke put the wrong blood type heart into a 15 year old heart lung transplant patient after calling her all excited that they were going to save her life with the prized long awaited perfectly matched donor organ - yeah hoorah!
Then we were subjected to heart wrenching news commentary on CNN because the mother is kicked out of the hospital when she wants to move her child to another hospital - but Duke won't let her.
She begged the public for another heart and lungs to save her child - I think they tried - it didn't work. We all got to sit here and watch THAT on the news while the child was dying.

The head of Duke's universal health care program was recently found guilty of raping his five year old adopted son of differing color on-line and invited complete strangers (men) to visit and join in the abuse of his son with him.
This is a top health leader of Duke. How many followed lead?

The cop who raped someone in GA recently. That was all over the news.
Those examples pop immediately to mind Walt. Do you actually need links - or do you remember now?; August 26, 2013 at 4:53 AM
Anonymous said...: You are referring to the case of the 14 year old little girl from Mexico. A surgeon made a mistake and transplanted an organ without checking blood type. The mother was NOT kicked out of the hospital. In fact, Duke PAID and PAID dearly for the mistake made by one of its physicians. Medical mistakes DO happen. That's why there is malpractice and other forms of insurance. Out of the thousands of cases, thousands of patients.....yes, this one was tragic. However, I doubt that the countless other patients and families whose lives have been saved by physicians at Duke would call it "evil".
The person you speak up that was involved with molestation of his adopted son WAS and IS being held accountable...criminally, in fact. The guy was immediately dismissed by Duke. This was NOT an act by "Duke"; it was the horrible behavior of an individual employed by Duke. Are you now going to condemn the entire UNC organization because of the terrible behavior of one of its senior faculty members who went online and exposed himself in a child porn ring? Oh, I guess you only rag on Duke. Sorry! Or, perhaps you would like to trash the entire NCCU organization because one of its coaches recently got himself arrested (again) for domestic violence? Nah, course not. But, hey, out of the thousands of cases, patients, faculty members, and employees.........you pick two examples.....and from these two, you trash the ENTIRE Duke organization??? Stupid.
Sure, Duke has made mistakes. What organization with more than 13,000 employees has not, bro? What you fail to mention is the MILLIONS, I mean MILLIONS, in charity care, public contribution, support for Durham, and employment benefit that Duke provides directly.
Put your little asshat on and tell us all about big bad evil Duke......; August 26, 2013 at 5:49 AM
Anonymous said...: By the way, the mother of Jessica did NOT want to move her child out of Duke. The mother had gotten herself involved with a KOOK in North Carolina who was exploiting the child and who tries to extort money from Duke. The mother of the child, to this day, does NOT blame the hospital....says she knows it was a mistake made by the doctor....and says, to this day, that the care her daughter received was wonderful. Duke never avoided responsibility for that mistake. The CEO of the hospital, at the time, went on 60 minutes and took full responsibility.
Get your story straight....; August 26, 2013 at 5:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Trash Duke all you want, poster. I doubt too many people give two hoots what you say because you run your mouth with unsupported wild generalizations and claims.
Duke is a huge organization with thousands of employees, faculty, consultants, vendors, etc. It was probably one of the largest employers in the state and it has a WONDERFUL reputation among leading academic medical centers...at the national level. Does it make mistakes? Certainly. But, while you dribble on about how terrible Duke is, I suggest you spend a bit of time educating yourself on the thousands of patients Duke has cared for...and who owe their lives to the medical staff at Duke.; August 26, 2013 at 5:58 AM
Anonymous said...: seriously, i get asked to give examples of incidents that support what i said by walt, i say no, walt calls bull, and then when i give simple examples you - in all your glorious asshat ways - jump all over me for doing so

you - are - fracked - fracked - i - say - fracked

blah

and - yes - it - bugs - me - that - they - do - those - things

got a problem with that, eh?

why

your poor little delusion about the greatness of duke is cracked just a bit

it is a tough break isn't it

blah; August 26, 2013 at 5:58 AM
Anonymous said...: you know what else

if broadhead is so bad that he is basically leading the ruin of duke, then, yes, if duke doesn't get a new leader immediately when they see the harm he is doing, then it is fair to blame all of duke for not taking care of their own problems that are harming many - and it is fair for the public, etc. to hold a dim view of duke not doing so or of duke demonstrating animosity and ill will toward any who hold this view that duke should take care of its own problems first - as many do; August 26, 2013 at 6:28 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't necessarily have a problem with honest mistakes being made and honest apologies and resolutions made - only if they keep happening over and over without an increase in skills to overcome the mistake immediately - especially when harm is involved.

What I do have a problem with is being made a victim of people like the two who have posted immediately after I listed a brief and simple example of Duke killing and raping people - like I am supposed to accept those things. That is it - I don't accept those things because they are not acceptable - and for the most part - the way the problems are handled is to victimize the victims further and terrorize the public into being too fearful to have a negative thought about great ol duke - and you know that sukes and makes the public want dukes services even less - but yet it continues - unabated - because people are baited and groomed to act that way by duke - because it serves their purposes of remaining great in the eyes of their donors - which is their main goal - money, power, prestige, wealth, control, etc.; August 26, 2013 at 6:49 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: o"Anyway, I can talk talk about Duke here if I want to - and ask my questions to Walt or A Lawyer or whomever else has a thought on the matter - do you mind???"

Well, yes -- I do mind. The topic of this particular blog is the lawsuit Sid filed against the State of North Carolina. If you can't keep your comments relevant to this blog, then you're nothing more than a troll.

It's that simple.; August 26, 2013 at 6:51 AM
Anonymous said...: says lance the enlightened leader of the duke hate-crime adled troll brigade

yeah; August 26, 2013 at 7:10 AM
Anonymous said...: agree with you, Lance. Add another one to the troll honor roll.....must be related to Kenny.

on the topic at hand, Lance, I didn't find much surprising in the IndyWeek article.....except the even longer and wider history that Sidney has....in filing suits and claiming victimhood. His patterns are well established.....create a false hurt, find a false villan, file a groundless suit, and see if he can collect.....
Nifong must be embarrassed...if he is capable of being any MORE embarrassed than he already is....; August 26, 2013 at 7:25 AM
Anonymous said...: wow, DUKE raped somebody? I'd like to know how that was physically possible...; August 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM
Anonymous said...: I am LOVING the way Holmes is handling Mangum's case, so far.......in particular, his 100% refusal to engage Harr, in any way. I hope Holmes has told Mangum that, at the first sign of any communication with Harr, Holmes will walk.
Mangum doesn't have much else....beyond stall....at this point; August 26, 2013 at 7:31 AM
Anonymous said...: an example of dukeness

no wonder they have the lowest town/gown community/society rating in the nation; August 26, 2013 at 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Whoever is posting lately about Duke is using HARRIAN and KENHYDERALIAN debate tactics.

In a nutshell, the HARRIAN/KENHYDERALIAN style of debate is, make an outlandish uncorroborated allegation. Then declare the allegation true because no one has refuted it to your satisfaction.; August 26, 2013 at 8:05 AM
Anonymous said...: you must not read the news

those things i mention do not need corroboration - they have become very apparent and/or were made very apparent through the news and media and just generally being a NC citizen, you learn these things eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later, and hopefully without too much harm done to you before you learn it

it is common knowledge

so is this hate-crime patrol you guys have going - that type behavior on dukes part is actually now illigal and harms duke more than others; August 26, 2013 at 8:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I am LOVING the way Holmes is handling Mangum's case, so far.......in particular, his 100% refusal to engage Harr, in any way. I hope Holmes has told Mangum that, at the first sign of any communication with Harr, Holmes will walk.
Mangum doesn't have much else....beyond stall....at this point

The reason Scott Holmes will walk off Mangum's case is because he won't be able to coerce her into accepting a plea deal that would protect Duke University Hospital, the medical examiner, and the State. He'll come up with some flimsy conflict of interest excuse.

-- So sayeth Soothsayer Sid; August 26, 2013 at 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Interesting. I just watched the Shan Carter Flog.
Shan came from what can be considered a "normal" family -- father, mother, sisters....He moved around a bit due to his father's career in the miltary, but that's not uncommon, either.
He was a smart kid, but didn't really apply himself...

So far, he could be my son.

BUT -- he began to sell drugs in his teens....Something Sid barely touches on here.
I'd like to know more about why a kid like Shan starts down this path. It certainly seems like his family situation was not one that would lead to this....; August 26, 2013 at 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh, I am sure Sidney will wail, wring his hands, and lecture about how the evil white oppressors made poor Carter sell drugs. And, of course, we already know it was some white guy who made Carter murder a little child.
right. certainly.; August 26, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Whine all you want about duke, poster. nobody gives a rip what you think.....; August 26, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh, I get it, sidney..........Scott Holmes is yet another attorney who is in on the fix and who is kissing duke's behind, right? is that it? Holmes, a guy with a reputation for being an outstanding spokesperson for social justice, fairness, and for representing people who can't pay huge fees? That Holmes? The man who is a Quaker? The guy who does countless hours of volunteer work? That Holmes?
You really are a scumbag, you know that, sidney. you really are.; August 26, 2013 at 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...: ...this scott holmes, sidney? this one?...
....."Scott graduated with honors from the University of North Carolina Law School in 1998. He graduated with highest honors from UNC Chapel Hill for a thesis in history and won the Worth Award for excellence in philosophy. While at UNC Law, he received the Alan Berman Scholarship for Commitment to Civil Rights, and helped organize conferences on race, class and gender. While in law school, he published the article: From Workers’ State to Work Without Pay: Labor Reform in the Russian Federation 23 N.C. J. INT’L. & COMM. REG. 341 (1998).

After law school, Scott clerked with Chief Judge John Martin of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. He worked as a public defender in Durham, and with a local non-profit the Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina. He worked with a coalition of legal aid organizations to challenge the racially restrictive zoning ordinances imposed by the Town of Tarboro after Hurricane Fran. ".....

Nice, sidney.....and you.....the professional con artist have the balls to criticize Holmes.; August 26, 2013 at 1:06 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The reason Scott Holmes will walk off Mangum's case is because he won't be able to coerce her into accepting a plea deal that would protect Duke University Hospital, the medical examiner, and the State. He'll come up with some flimsy conflict of interest excuse.

-- So sayeth Soothsayer Sid".

So sayeth deluded ignorant megalomaniac SIDNEY, who is still p---ed off because Scott Holmes has done the best for Crystal by keeping SIDNEY out of the case.; August 26, 2013 at 2:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 26, 2013 at 8:18 AM

"those things i mention do not need corroboration - they have become very apparent and/or were made very apparent through the news and media and just generally being a NC citizen, you learn these things eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later, and hopefully without too much harm done to you before you learn it

it is common knowledge

so is this hate-crime patrol you guys have going - that type behavior on dukes part is actually now illigal(sic) and harms duke more than others".

Jut the kind of thing someone would say when he can't corroborate the fantastic allegations he is making.; August 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM
Anonymous said...: i'm not making allegations

everyone knows duke does these things and noone seems to be able to stop them mostely because of corruption, political grooming, and displaced loyalty, and wanting to vicariously feel like a winner through their sports teams, etc.

why should people have to deal with all that sh88t just to see a doctor; August 26, 2013 at 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said August 26, 2013 at 2:56 PM

"i'm not making allegations".

That's correct. You are making UNCORROBORATED allegations.

"everyone knows duke does these things and noone(sic) seems to be able to stop them mostely(sic) because of corruption, political grooming, and displaced loyalty, and wanting to vicariously feel like a winner through their sports teams, etc."

You are as deluded as SIDNEY, and that is pretty bad.

"why should people have to deal with all that sh88t just to see a doctor".

Corroborate "all that sh88t" you are alleging happened. Unless you can, none of it exists.; August 26, 2013 at 3:20 PM
Anonymous said...: seriously, what exactly do you think did not or do not happen that i mentioned, and why.

if you don't think those things happened, then i call you out on your delusional projection

seriously; August 26, 2013 at 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: I'd personally like to see corroboration by the poster who says Jessica was being extorted by some kook, and that her mother did not get thrown out of the hospital for calling the media because she wanted a new heart for Jessica immediately and needed help for that. That was the story portrayed in the news at the time. And that Duke would not let her move her child to another hospital after they threw her out. That was in the local news.; August 26, 2013 at 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 26, 2013 at 3:26 PM

"seriously, what exactly do you think did not or do not happen that i mentioned, and why."

Everything you allege but do not corroborate.

"if you don't think those things happened, then i call you out on your delusional projection".

If you think those things happen, then provide proof.

So far you have not. Why?; August 26, 2013 at 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 26, 2013 at 4:20 PM

"I'd personally like to see corroboration by the poster who says Jessica was being extorted by some kook, and that her mother did not get thrown out of the hospital for calling the media because she wanted a new heart for Jessica immediately and needed help for that. That was the story portrayed in the news at the time. And that Duke would not let her move her child to another hospital after they threw her out. That was in the local news."

If it was in the local news, provide a link to the story.; August 26, 2013 at 4:38 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 418 Newer› Newest»

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Lawsuit filed against the State of North Carolina

418 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me