justice4nifong: When Justice and the Law collide: Opening salvos in a legal war

Saturday, October 5, 2013

When Justice and the Law collide: Opening salvos in a legal war

652 comments:

1 – 200 of 652 Newer› Newest»

Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"Larceny of chose in action" is not a lesser included offense of Murder and requires a separate charge.

Honestly, Sid- for such a legal 'expert' as yourself, you should be able to read AND understand Walt's post.

Your average 5th grader could....

So, you're telling me that Assault and/or Battery is included as a lesser charge in "First degree murder"? That doesn't make sense. I can understand Second-degree murder or even manslaughter because in those events a person's life is lost. It makes no sense to me how assault could be lumped in with murder.

I do not profess to have any legal training... just speaking as a reasonable open-minded civilian.; October 5, 2013 at 1:32 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid,

Please answer one question. Do you think that deliberately acting like a fool helps your credibility or does it just attract more attention?

A foundation has not been laid for your question... therefore, it is unanswerable.; October 5, 2013 at 1:35 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!! IMPORTANT QUESTION--

Don't recall hearing any feedback about the "Brooklyn Nine-Nine" show... the episode titled "The Tagger." I thought it was hilarious. The show is well written and has a great cast.

What do you think?; October 5, 2013 at 1:42 PM
Walt said...: Once again we hear how the Sidney demands to be excused from the law, but wants to apply it to others. In North Carolina the law is simple and the same as the other states: NCGS § 14‑159.13. Second degree trespass.
(a) Offense. – A person commits the offense of second degree trespass if, without authorization, he enters or remains on premises of another:
(1) After he has been notified not to enter or remain there by the owner, by a person in charge of the premises, by a lawful occupant, or by another authorized person;

Sid turned his voice recorder on and we hear a Duke Security Guard identify himself and tell Sid to leave. That's the notice requirement under § 14‑159.13(a)(1).

Once put on notice, Sid refuses to leave. How utterly selfish and self-centered. We know from his previous posts that Duke did not discriminate against him because he is a member of a protected class, but because, according to Sid, his support for Nifong. By definition, that is not a violation of Sid's civil rights. Instead, he is nothing but a trespasser.

Walt-in-Durham; October 5, 2013 at 1:50 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "So, you're telling me that Assault and/or Battery is included as a lesser charge in "First degree murder"?

Again you are not paying attention. Lesser included offense.

"I do not profess to have any legal training... just speaking as a reasonable open-minded civilian.

You have never been open-minded. In fact, you have consistently refused to learn or even accept the first thing about the law.

Walt-in-Durham; October 5, 2013 at 1:58 PM
A Lawyer said...: As I predicted long ago (as soon as Dr. Harr posted his lawsuit), Duke has moved to dismiss on grounds of res judicata. That motion will be granted. Dr. Harr litigated his case all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. He can't bring the same case over.

Imagine the consequences of any other legal regime: litigation would never end. Harr sues Duke: Duke wins; Harr sues again, this time he wins; Duke then sues Harr to set aside his win and reinstate his original loss; etc., etc. Where is the end point?

But, says Dr. Harr, my case never got to a jury. That is because the court granted a 12(b)(6) motion, which means the court accepted as true every factual allegation in Dr. Harr's Complaint and still decided that he could not recover. So a jury trial would not have made any difference.

If Dr. Harr thinks that deciding cases on motions to dismiss is wrong, imagine this scenario: I file a lawsuit which alleges that (1) Duke University is a great American institution; (2) Dr. Harr wrongly accuses Duke of misconduct; (3) therefore, Dr. Harr is un-American; (4) accordingly, the court should declare Dr. Harr an enemy combatant and send him to Gitmo to be waterboarded. Should that lawsuit be heard by a jury, or should the court dismiss it on a motion?; October 5, 2013 at 4:15 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
So, you're telling me that Assault and/or Battery is included as a lesser charge in "First degree murder"? That doesn't make sense. I can understand Second-degree murder or even manslaughter because in those events a person's life is lost. It makes no sense to me how assault could be lumped in with murder.

I do not profess to have any legal training... just speaking as a reasonable open-minded civilian."

No you are not. Your are speaking as a deluded megalomaniac who believes his lack on knowledge of he law trumps the real law.; October 5, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Anonymous said...
"Sid,

Please answer one question. Do you think that deliberately acting like a fool helps your credibility or does it just attract more attention?

A foundation has not been laid for your question... therefore, it is unanswerable."

Wrong. You yourself have acted like a fool. You do not want to answer the question, i.e. you want to avoid admitting you are a fool.; October 5, 2013 at 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!! IMPORTANT QUESTION--

Don't recall hearing any feedback about the "Brooklyn Nine-Nine" show... the episode titled "The Tagger." I thought it was hilarious. The show is well written and has a great cast.

What do you think?"

That no one cares about what you think about anything.; October 5, 2013 at 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR.

Duke holds a function on its campus. It invites the public. How does that confer on you a right to attend any and all such functions in the future. It is more of a privilege Duke confers and it is right to withdraw that privilege if you do not confirm to its polocies.

Duke has a non solicitation policy. Duke tells you that you are violating its policy. You are violating its policy. Whether or not something is a violation is not up to the violator.; October 5, 2013 at 6:05 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You act as if you think Duke's action against you is as momentous as Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat. It is not even close to being close to that. If you believe it, you are a deluded, totally divorced from reality megalomaniac.; October 6, 2013 at 3:39 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!! IMPORTANT QUESTION--

Don't recall hearing any feedback about the "Brooklyn Nine-Nine" show... the episode titled "The Tagger." I thought it was hilarious. The show is well written and has a great cast.

What do you think?"

I think you have deluded yourself into believing this piece of trivia is a very important question. Not surprising for someone who cites Perry Mason as his legal source.; October 6, 2013 at 3:40 AM
Anonymous said...: that's a lot to read and digest on this blog in that format - gotta getta on my lawyer digs and buy me some office supplies ... paper ... ink ... gotta go get me some of those long yellow legal pads and make up a list ... of something ... to look all professional like ... cuz ... looks like fun ... not

It seems it would've been a lot easier for duke if they just let you leave on your own accord in the next few minutes like you said you were going to do ... since the event was over - and - you WERE leaving ... you weren't trespassing - they just insisted on going through the mockery of kicking you off even though you were leaving anyway ... what for - because 'they' arbitrarily decided you were trespassing for no reason at all even though you were leaving since the event was over is what it sounded like.

Next - or now - if you can fit it in - maybe you did??? - DEMAND they recompense you for the loss of access without conflict, hostility, and threat of harm to life and limb (ifn their cops decide to blow your head off cuz you spook them or one of their easily spooked and provoked employees with a penchant for getting rid of people or somethin' - that seems like a very big threat to many - their penchant for gettin rid of people arbitarily) - of their most prestious number one or best ranking professional services - public and private if you should qualify - and see what they have to say to THAT. How do you do that - or have you already? Do you plan to?

What's the next step in this new lawsuit between you and duke, etc.?; October 6, 2013 at 3:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

When you add the directory, could you please publish the documents as html pages with relevant links if possible for ease of reading and studying. Thank you if so - it is hard to read the legal documents encased within the flog (for me anyway).

Thank you ... sincerely - i am very interesting in understanding better what is being said in these legal briefs and motions that you are posting.

Thank you again.; October 6, 2013 at 4:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 6, 2013 at 3:53 AM:

"that's a lot to read and digest on this blog in that format - gotta getta on my lawyer digs and buy me some office supplies ... paper ... ink ... gotta go get me some of those long yellow legal pads and make up a list ... of something ... to look all professional like ... cuz ... looks like fun ... not

It seems it would've been a lot easier for duke if they just let you leave on your own accord in the next few minutes like you said you were going to do ... since the event was over - and - you WERE leaving ... you weren't trespassing - they just insisted on going through the mockery of kicking you off even though you were leaving anyway ... what for - because 'they' arbitrarily decided you were trespassing for no reason at all even though you were leaving since the event was over is what it sounded like.

Next - or now - if you can fit it in - maybe you did??? - DEMAND they recompense you for the loss of access without conflict, hostility, and threat of harm to life and limb (ifn their cops decide to blow your head off cuz you spook them or one of their easily spooked and provoked employees with a penchant for getting rid of people or somethin' - that seems like a very big threat to many - their penchant for gettin rid of people arbitarily) - of their most prestious number one or best ranking professional services - public and private if you should qualify - and see what they have to say to THAT. How do you do that - or have you already? Do you plan to?

What's the next step in this new lawsuit between you and duke, etc.?"

The answer is nothing. Some of the issues have already been decided. In other issues, SIDNEY has no legal standing to sue. So far as his suit against NC, that is precluded by the 11th Amendment.; October 6, 2013 at 4:30 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "If what you say is true, then why not include the two counts of Larceny of Chose in action within the First Degree Murder charge?

I require further elucidation on this point."

You have never proven receptive to elucidation in the past, but because others might be curious, I will answer.

Larceny requires proof of different elements than murder. Larceny is the:
1. taking and carrying away,
2. of property,
3. of another's.

Murder is, in its simplest form, the:
1. knowing or intentional,
2. killing,
3. of another person.

The state has the burden of proof. In the murder charge, they have to prove certain things, for larceny different things. Thus, larceny is not a lesser included offense.; October 6, 2013 at 5:17 AM
kenhyderal said...: In the previous thread Anonymous said: "Kenny claims: Crystal was not impaired
"And while being questioned, the dancer "passed out and was unresponsive," McCrae said. I do not agree that someone who passes out is not impaired." ......... That is only hearsay. This so called statement comes only from the Herald Sun's account of the incident. This was not written in Officer McCrae's notes nor said in his testimony in court.; October 6, 2013 at 8:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny claims regarding reports that Crystal was "passed out and unresponsive": That is only hearsay. This so called statement comes only from the Herald Sun's account of the incident. This was not written in Officer McCrae's notes nor said in his testimony in court.

Deputy Carroll's police report includes that observation. Thus, your claim is false.

Please provide your sources. Otherwise, your claim is nothing but hearsay. As I asked previously and you have not answered, why should readers give more credibility to a pseudonymous poster on a blog than to police reports and media reports.; October 6, 2013 at 9:09 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Anonymous said...
"Sid,

Please answer one question. Do you think that deliberately acting like a fool helps your credibility or does it just attract more attention?

A foundation has not been laid for your question... therefore, it is unanswerable."

Check this out, a link to a letter you sent to the Indy Weekly. It establishes you are a fool:

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/re-sidney-harr-responds/Content?oid=3705590; October 6, 2013 at 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"In the previous thread Anonymous said: 'Kenny claims: Crystal was not impaired
'And while being questioned, the dancer passed out and was unresponsive,' McCrae said. I do not agree that someone who passes out is not impaired." ......... That is only hearsay. This so called statement comes only from the Herald Sun's account of the incident. This was not written in Officer McCrae's notes nor said in his testimony in court."

KENHYDERAL is again saying he would rather believe Cryatal's fabricated account rather than the truth.; October 6, 2013 at 9:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

Anonymous said...
"Sid,

Please answer one question. Do you think that deliberately acting like a fool helps your credibility or does it just attract more attention?

A foundation has not been laid for your question... therefore, it is unanswerable."

Check this out, a link to a letter you sent to the Indy Weekly. It establishes you are a fool:

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/re-sidney-harr-responds/Content?oid=3705590

Au contraire, mon ami. That article is unsubstantiated balderdash and gossip written for the purpose of discrediting me. That article, therefore, is inadmissible. Nice try, though.; October 6, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney,

The anonymous poster did not refer to the Indy article as establishing you as a fool. The poster referred to your response as doing so.

Your feigned inability to understand the poster's comment confirmed it.; October 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sidney,

The anonymous poster did not refer to the Indy article as establishing you as a fool. The poster referred to your response as doing so.

Your feigned inability to understand the poster's comment confirmed it.

You are absolutely correct... regarding the fact that the commenter was referring to my letter responding to the article and not the article itself.

Let me say this in response... My time online at the library's computer is limited, especially on Sunday when computers are in heavy use. Therefore, I speed read, and at times miss germane points.

As far as my letter of response goes, I believe that it shows me to be intelligent, reasonable, and highly logical.; October 6, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "If what you say is true, then why not include the two counts of Larceny of Chose in action within the First Degree Murder charge?

I require further elucidation on this point."

You have never proven receptive to elucidation in the past, but because others might be curious, I will answer.

Larceny requires proof of different elements than murder. Larceny is the:
1. taking and carrying away,
2. of property,
3. of another's.

Murder is, in its simplest form, the:
1. knowing or intentional,
2. killing,
3. of another person.

The state has the burden of proof. In the murder charge, they have to prove certain things, for larceny different things. Thus, larceny is not a lesser included offense.

So then, Walt, are you suggesting that assault and battery require the same elements as murder?

The question is, why not charge Mangum with assault and battery if they feel it justified? The fact is that they did not.; October 6, 2013 at 11:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney asks why Mangum was not charged with assault.

She was. The original charge was assault with a deadly weapon. When Daye subsequently died, the charge was upgraded to murder. The upgrading did not negate the original charge.; October 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr,

When you add the directory, could you please publish the documents as html pages with relevant links if possible for ease of reading and studying. Thank you if so - it is hard to read the legal documents encased within the flog (for me anyway).

Thank you ... sincerely - i am very interesting in understanding better what is being said in these legal briefs and motions that you are posting.

Thank you again.

I just posted the link to the directory... which can also be accessed through the website. It was posted there years ago, and I hope that it is in a format that you can easily read.

Thank you for your feedback.; October 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sidney asks why Mangum was not charged with assault.

She was. The original charge was assault with a deadly weapon. When Daye subsequently died, the charge was upgraded to murder. The upgrading did not negate the original charge.

The murder charge and each of the two counts of Larceny of Chose in Action have their own separate file number. There is no file or case number for the assault charge. Why not?; October 6, 2013 at 11:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Anonymous October 6, 2013 at 3:53 AM:

"that's a lot to read and digest on this blog in that format - gotta getta on my lawyer digs and buy me some office supplies ... paper ... ink ... gotta go get me some of those long yellow legal pads and make up a list ... of something ... to look all professional like ... cuz ... looks like fun ... not

It seems it would've been a lot easier for duke if they just let you leave on your own accord in the next few minutes like you said you were going to do ... since the event was over - and - you WERE leaving ... you weren't trespassing - they just insisted on going through the mockery of kicking you off even though you were leaving anyway ... what for - because 'they' arbitrarily decided you were trespassing for no reason at all even though you were leaving since the event was over is what it sounded like.

Next - or now - if you can fit it in - maybe you did??? - DEMAND they recompense you for the loss of access without conflict, hostility, and threat of harm to life and limb (ifn their cops decide to blow your head off cuz you spook them or one of their easily spooked and provoked employees with a penchant for getting rid of people or somethin' - that seems like a very big threat to many - their penchant for gettin rid of people arbitarily) - of their most prestious number one or best ranking professional services - public and private if you should qualify - and see what they have to say to THAT. How do you do that - or have you already? Do you plan to?

What's the next step in this new lawsuit between you and duke, etc.?"

The answer is nothing. Some of the issues have already been decided. In other issues, SIDNEY has no legal standing to sue. So far as his suit against NC, that is precluded by the 11th Amendment.

Duke could of easily defused the entire incident, but chose instead to bully me.

Thanks for your comments.; October 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM
Anonymous said...: You are, simply put, a racist liar...attention seeking pathetic old man.; October 6, 2013 at 11:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt has answered this question at least twice, A Lawyer has answered it once and I have answered it once. You are apparently the only one who does not understand or pretends not to understand.

Lesser included charge.

For example, if you were able to establish that an esophageal intubation was an intervening cause because it was not related to the stabbing (I said establish, not just allege) due to another independent cause (such as the DTs if not related to the stabbing) the state could continue to pursue assault charges even as it could no longer pursue murder or manslaughter.

Does this establish the foundation for the question about you acting like a fool.; October 6, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney notes: Duke could of [sic] defused the entire incident...

You never proved that you did not precipitate the incident by acting like an arrogant asshole, much as you (and admittedly many of your antagonists) do on this board.; October 6, 2013 at 11:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Following on the last comment, I suggest that you post the affidavits from each of your conversation partners. In that way, you can disprove the allegation, that someone complained about you because they found you obnoxious, tried to end the conversation, but they couldn't get you to shut up.

Not everyone is willing to be "elucidated" by someone who doesn't generally understand what he is talking about.; October 6, 2013 at 12:04 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Au contraire, mon ami. That article is unsubstantiated balderdash and gossip written for the purpose of discrediting me. That article, therefore, is inadmissible. Nice try, though."

I was referring to your letter in which you repeated four uncorroborated allegations as truths. Only a fool would do that.

I believe the article would be admissable should you try to testify on behalf of Crystal about your uncorroborated allegations. To make the allegations about the autopsy report and the cause of death, you would have to establish your credentials as an expert. What is in the interview, which by your own admission you solicited, establishes you are not an expert.

It establishes you are not credible at all.; October 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"You are absolutely correct... regarding the fact that the commenter was referring to my letter responding to the article and not the article itself.

Let me say this in response... My time online at the library's computer is limited, especially on Sunday when computers are in heavy use. Therefore, I speed read, and at times miss germane points."

SIDNEY, you miss germane points all the time, not just when you speed read, e.g. one can not provoke a conflict and then plead self defense ig one kills someone as a result of the conflict as Shan Carted did.

"As far as my letter of response goes, I believe that it shows me to be intelligent, reasonable, and highly logical."

If you believe that you have established yourself as a fool.; October 6, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The murder charge and each of the two counts of Larceny of Chose in Action have their own separate file number. There is no file or case number for the assault charge. Why not?"

You establish that you miss germane points even when you don't speed read. As Walt has explained, assault is a charge which is a lesser included charge in murder.; October 6, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Duke could of easily defused the entire incident, but chose instead to bully me."

In what way? You were trespassing on Duke's property and acting inappropriately. You could have prevented the situation by behaving appropriately.; October 6, 2013 at 12:24 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDHEY HARR:

"So then, Walt, are you suggesting that assault and battery require the same elements as murder?

The question is, why not charge Mangum with assault and battery if they feel it justified? The fact is that they did not."

Another example establishing you miss germane points even when you do not speed read, and that you are a fool.

Assault is a lesser charge which is included in a murder.

This is also an example of how resistant you are to elucidation.

Do you need further elucidation? Obviously.; October 6, 2013 at 12:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Duke is private property. Duke has established policies concerning solicitation. You violated those policies. Period. Duke had every right to require you to leave its property. You are doing nothing but trying to make some money.......and we all know it.; October 6, 2013 at 2:07 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 9:09 said; "Deputy Carroll's police report includes that observation. Thus, your claim is false. Please provide your sources. Otherwise, your claim is nothing but hearsay. As I asked previously and you have not answered, why should readers give more credibility to a pseudonymous poster on a blog than to police reports and media reports".................. Again there was no reference to this in the Police reports given at Crystals trial. The O'Carroll statement supposedly comes from a cowardly anonymous blog called The Johnsville News. More anonymous I might add then I am. Kenyderal is a pseudonym but Ken Edwards stands up to be counted.; October 6, 2013 at 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...: I thought Crystal agreed to a plea deal. What trial?

Just provide your sources.; October 6, 2013 at 3:34 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "So then, Walt, are you suggesting that assault and battery require the same elements as murder?

The question is, why not charge Mangum with assault and battery if they feel it justified? The fact is that they did not."

You just refuse to pay attention. I wrote above you have to look at it backward. To prove murder the state has to prove assault, but not the other way around. We'll give Sid the "F" for comprehension.

Walt-in-Durham; October 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "So then, Walt, are you suggesting that assault and battery require the same elements as murder?"

No. To prove murder, the state must prove the same elements as assault. You really don't comprehend much.

"The question is, why not charge Mangum with assault and battery if they feel it justified? The fact is that they did not."

Again, for the mentally challenged, lesser included offense. By charging murder, assault comes along, so does attempted assault, so does Murder II, and Manslaughter I and II.

With advocates like Sid, Crystal really doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham; October 6, 2013 at 3:56 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "The murder charge and each of the two counts of Larceny of Chose in Action have their own separate file number. There is no file or case number for the assault charge. Why not?"

You really aren't serious. The above has to be your most uninformed comment in a long time. Probably as dumb as your Chapter 58 petition for a writ of mandamus.

Walt-in-Durham; October 6, 2013 at 3:59 PM
Anonymous said...: I just counted the number of times the question about lesser included charges was answered....fully, simply and accurately. SEVEN TIMES, harr. Take your medication, bro. You need help.; October 6, 2013 at 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...: I believe then that we have established that either is a fool or acts like fool.

Sidney, the foundation for my question has been laid.

Do you think that deliberately acting like a fool helps your credibility or does it just attract more attention?; October 6, 2013 at 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Again there was no reference to this in the Police reports given at Crystals trial. The O'Carroll statement supposedly comes from a cowardly anonymous blog called The Johnsville News. More anonymous I might add then I am. Kenyderal is a pseudonym but Ken Edwards stands up to be counted."

KENHYDERAK, aka Ken Edwards, stands up for Crystal's fabrications.; October 6, 2013 at 5:53 PM
Anonymous said...: I watched the video. Harr was leering at Lady Justice's tittays.....; October 6, 2013 at 6:24 PM
Anonymous said...: the think with watching duke do its thang on a continual basis is this:

they use corruption, cohersion, mind games, the media, the justice system, money, power, prestige, and intimidation, manipulation, seduction even, and grooming to make themselves appear donation worthy and 'the best'

meaning: they are not intelligent nor donation worthy in the way they resolve issues that cause harm to others.

They would rather the other person be harmed and made ill in some way - even to the point of death - and then also take the blame.

They have TOO many professional specialities that all gain from the marketing magic bullet of the name of duke - but that ALL lead back to health services which demand NO HARM be done - and YET - they are very obvious in the way that they laugh at harming others in very public ways through their other specialities and 'associates - students, etc.'AND through their health services.

The clash between the harm they do and laugh about - and the very real potential for harm in a profession that MUST therefore - if it is to provide its stated purpose of health - demand that NO HARM be done as a basis for operating in that professional field of endeavor encased as 'law' in the hypocratic oath.

perhaps the cops and all others on duke think they CAN harm - so therefore - there is a very true battle between good and evil at duke to the point that the evil is winning by billions ...

the evil side of duke is all most see these days

have you ever noticed that whenever duke does something harmful to others - it starts running pr news in the media to provide more brain wash human we love people stories - when they are covering up something else that indicates just the opposite. the thing is - most of the time if they just dealt with the issue without lying about it and trying to make the victim look at fault so they can continue to look great and make billions - most people would understand and want to see things handled well as they are aware that they could too be duke's victim some day - so they find interest in the outcome of how duke treats others. i don't think duke realizes that.

it is all the games that duke plays to make themselves 'look' great that is causing their decline - most people aren't that uninformed anymore for those games to work like they did before - so - after the intimidation stops working - whats next? do they finally acknowledge and fix and rectify their own problems and take responsiblity as laws state they must in a just system - or do they dig themselves deeper into a quagmire of their own lies, deceptions, and deadly abusive games - all in the name of duke billions?

i think that is what we are watching - still - and again; October 7, 2013 at 1:57 AM
Anonymous said...: The truth about sidney harr can be found in the IndyWeek article. There is far more to the story and I would expect that it will all come out. and soon; October 7, 2013 at 3:10 AM
Anonymous said...: so - we get to see Dr. Harr torn apart by duke - what else is new?

doesn't change what duke did and does - don't ya know?

just more of the same; October 7, 2013 at 3:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 7, 2013 at 1:57 AM:

"the think with watching duke do its thang on a continual basis is this:

they use corruption, cohersion, mind games, the media, the justice system, money, power, prestige, and intimidation, manipulation, seduction even, and grooming to make themselves appear donation worthy and 'the best'

meaning: they are not intelligent nor donation worthy in the way they resolve issues that cause harm to others.

They would rather the other person be harmed and made ill in some way - even to the point of death - and then also take the blame.

They have TOO many professional specialities that all gain from the marketing magic bullet of the name of duke - but that ALL lead back to health services which demand NO HARM be done - and YET - they are very obvious in the way that they laugh at harming others in very public ways through their other specialities and 'associates - students, etc.'AND through their health services.

The clash between the harm they do and laugh about - and the very real potential for harm in a profession that MUST therefore - if it is to provide its stated purpose of health - demand that NO HARM be done as a basis for operating in that professional field of endeavor encased as 'law' in the hypocratic oath.

perhaps the cops and all others on duke think they CAN harm - so therefore - there is a very true battle between good and evil at duke to the point that the evil is winning by billions ...

the evil side of duke is all most see these days

have you ever noticed that whenever duke does something harmful to others - it starts running pr news in the media to provide more brain wash human we love people stories - when they are covering up something else that indicates just the opposite. the thing is - most of the time if they just dealt with the issue without lying about it and trying to make the victim look at fault so they can continue to look great and make billions - most people would understand and want to see things handled well as they are aware that they could too be duke's victim some day - so they find interest in the outcome of how duke treats others. i don't think duke realizes that.

it is all the games that duke plays to make themselves 'look' great that is causing their decline - most people aren't that uninformed anymore for those games to work like they did before - so - after the intimidation stops working - whats next? do they finally acknowledge and fix and rectify their own problems and take responsiblity as laws state they must in a just system - or do they dig themselves deeper into a quagmire of their own lies, deceptions, and deadly abusive games - all in the name of duke billions?

i think that is what we are watching - still - and again"

Just another itheration of you making uncorroborated allegations. Your repeated demands that others prove your allegations for you is an admission that you can not corroborate your allegations. Ergo you are a fabricator.; October 7, 2013 at 3:33 AM
Anonymous said...: fine - what did i just alledge specifically (per you) that you need proof for?

please ... continue ...; October 7, 2013 at 3:55 AM
Anonymous said...: ya know you could save us all from having to reread everything again only to get to whatever negating comment you come up with to try to discredit whatever is said - no matter what - with a simple disclaimer:

like this:

ALL CAPS WHOEVER - WHATEVER

NEGATED - NEGATED - NEGATED!!!

got it?
try it ... see how it works for you - sorta like a red ink rubber stamp ... NEGATED - NEGATED - NEGATED!!!

got it? ... good; October 7, 2013 at 4:08 AM
Anonymous said...: put it this way - the insult to intelligence of most people with responsibilities in this world by duke and their minions put them beyond reason - there is no reason for what they do the way they do it - none - so - therefore they are playing evil manipulative games as they know very well what they are doing by now - and what is wrong with what they are doing and did - they just want to keep pushing to see how far they can continue to control their minions to follow their evil ways - they are 'drunk with the power' so to speak and to them it is all a game - regardless of what anyone says or does to stop them - they are determined to continue

so ... there has to be a reason for their evil - or they are just stupid - which they aren't - so there is an evil reason for their evil deeds then - plain and simple

or ... is duke really that stupid?

and if so ... why follow?

hard to if you actually 'see' what they are doing and why they do it.

which is fine - if you didn't have to also trust them with health services to save lives and make people well AND have to depend on them for THAT

all trust is gone by their evil ways ... which they do not disquise yet try to hide by harming others further? makes no sense - it insults the intelligence and core of being in most

so - i ask - why do they expect ANYONE to trust their health services or them? that is hard - if not impossible to do - for most; October 7, 2013 at 4:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 7, 2013 at 3:55 AM

"fine - what did i just alledge specifically (per you) that you need proof for?

please ... continue ..."

I don't need proof of anything. I am pointing out that since you can not prove the allegations you are making you must be fabricating them. If you want me to stop noting your fabrications, all you have to do is stop making them.; October 7, 2013 at 4:42 AM
Anonymous said...: AnonymousOctober 7, 2013 at 3:55 AM

"fine - what did i just alledge specifically (per you) that you need proof for?

please ... continue ..."

Everything in your post of October 7, 2013 at 1:57 AM is an uncorroborated allegation.; October 7, 2013 at 4:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 7, 2013 at 4:08 AM:

"ya know you could save us all from having to reread everything again only to get to whatever negating comment you come up with to try to discredit whatever is said - no matter what - with a simple disclaimer:

like this:

ALL CAPS WHOEVER - WHATEVER

NEGATED - NEGATED - NEGATED!!!

got it?
try it ... see how it works for you - sorta like a red ink rubber stamp ... NEGATED - NEGATED - NEGATED!!!

got it? ... good"

I don't have to negate your fabrications. Your fabrications do that all by themselves.; October 7, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 7, 2013 at 4:32 AM

"put it this way - the insult to intelligence of most people with responsibilities in this world by duke and their minions put them beyond reason - there is no reason for what they do the way they do it - none - so - therefore they are playing evil manipulative games as they know very well what they are doing by now - and what is wrong with what they are doing and did - they just want to keep pushing to see how far they can continue to control their minions to follow their evil ways - they are 'drunk with the power' so to speak and to them it is all a game - regardless of what anyone says or does to stop them - they are determined to continue

so ... there has to be a reason for their evil - or they are just stupid - which they aren't - so there is an evil reason for their evil deeds then - plain and simple

or ... is duke really that stupid?

and if so ... why follow?

hard to if you actually 'see' what they are doing and why they do it.

which is fine - if you didn't have to also trust them with health services to save lives and make people well AND have to depend on them for THAT

all trust is gone by their evil ways ... which they do not disquise yet try to hide by harming others further? makes no sense - it insults the intelligence and core of being in most

so - i ask - why do they expect ANYONE to trust their health services or them? that is hard - if not impossible to do - for most"

A more appropriate question would be, why do you expect anyone to take you seriously when all you publish are obvious fabrications?; October 7, 2013 at 4:52 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Again there was no reference to this in the Police reports given at Crystals trial. The O'Carroll statement supposedly comes from a cowardly anonymous blog called The Johnsville News. More anonymous I might add then I am. Kenyderal is a pseudonym but Ken Edwards stands up to be counted."

Ken Edwards is very Nifongian and Harrian in the way he stands up. He presents part of the record and suppresses, or tries to suppress, parts of the record he does not like.

The bottom line is, the entire record is that Crystal, while drunk, stole a car, led police on a high speed chase and tried to run down a police officer. That record was compiled BEFORE Crystal became infamous for being a false accuser.

Yars after her infamy, under the tutelage of Vincent Clark, she concocts a story.

That you try to pass off that concocted story as the truth says very little about your capacity to think or reason.

But then, you base your belief that Crystal was raped on a piece of hearsay from a source whose existence you can't even demonstrate.; October 7, 2013 at 4:58 AM
Anonymous said...: and why do you expect anyone to take you seriously if all you do is negate and expect others to actually believe you are a retired doctor and what you say means anything - except to negate?

you are simply an evil duke troll
as usual
blah; October 7, 2013 at 4:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Poster, Shake hands with Mr. Comma,,,,,, This is Mr. Period...... Oh, and say hello to Mr. capitaliZATION!!! Here's a suggestion. Go to the library and read a book called "Grammar, Punctuation: Basic Writing ABCs for Dummies".

otherwise all your posts is simply one big long string words runtogetherfornoapparentreason with nothing but dribblingnonsense TIED to weird punctuation, terrible spilling,er,spalling, uh, speeeling......

You do know where the library is, don't you?; October 7, 2013 at 5:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 7, 2013 at 4:59 AM

"and why do you expect anyone to take you seriously if all you do is negate and expect others to actually believe you are a retired doctor and what you say means anything - except to negate?

you are simply an evil duke troll
as usual
blah"

You again indulge in impotent name calling because you do not like being outed as a fabricator.; October 7, 2013 at 5:30 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: Dr. Harr -
You referenced the "Brooklyn Nine-Nine" show in your response to Duke's motion to dismiss.

That's pretty much all anyone needs to know about your response AND your "legal expertise".

You should have to pay for the time it takes someone to actually read your drivel.; October 7, 2013 at 5:49 AM
Anonymous said...: November trial date coming up for Mangum....or has it been pushed back again? Does lawyer number four need more time?; October 7, 2013 at 6:08 AM
Anonymous said...: opening salvos? I'd say more like last gasp of a racist asshat....; October 7, 2013 at 7:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Sounds very clear to me that professor coleman wanted nothing more than to get away from wingnut harr as quickly as possible. and the security guard was completely appropriate, professional, and did his job. harr was asked to leave, argued/questioned and did not immediately leave....that's tresspass. and, sidney, even though you are apparently too intellectually challenged to understand, Duke is private property and they have a right to insist you leave their property. In fact, they do not have to have a reason! If you come to my home for a garage sale, open to the public, and I decide I don't want you on my property, for whatever reason I wish, I can tell you to leave.....and, if you don't, I can call the police and have you removed. Don't like it, tough shit; October 7, 2013 at 7:42 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You say that the media does not want the public to know about your altercation with Duke. You assume as a fact that the public would want to know. Why would they want to know. You are not a newsworthy figure.

I listened to the recording of your encounter on Duke's campus. Like the evidence of what happened when Crystal stabbed Reginald Daye, like the evidence in the Shan Carter murder case, you distort rather than tell the truth.

You were the belligerent one, not Duke. Further, Professor Coleman was not trying to intervene on your behalf. You were trying to involve Professor Coleman and he was trying to get away from you.

What a deluded megalomaniac you are.; October 7, 2013 at 8:02 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

I say again, you do not have to be speed reading to miss germane points. You do it just by reading.; October 7, 2013 at 8:10 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Two comments ago, I should have said, in addition to What a deluded megalomaniac you are, is What a liar you are.

The Man from Nazareth, whom you profess to admire, said HE was the TRUTH.; October 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Today is the anniversary of the attack on Matthew Shepard in Wyoming by two homophobic asshats. I assume Victoria Peterson, Harr's big buddy and fellow Nifong backside kisser, will be celebrating this day.....along with all her other Christian dingdongs.; October 7, 2013 at 9:25 AM
Anonymous said...: I didn't see any of the documents that Duke etc, filed in response to nutjob harr's non-suit. I assume you have to have a PACER account, right, Walt?; October 7, 2013 at 9:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

When you mention case law at the end of your flog, what do you mean by that? What in your lawsuit can be used as case law by others?

Thank you for answering in advance.

I am very interested in understanding these cases better - like I have stated before - when i asked you if you could post the legal documents as regular html pages so that they would be easier to read (for me anyway). But in any case - read i will.

What case law are you referring to specifically so I will have a better understanding of that reference point to understand the documents, and the case, better.

Thank you for you time and for posting the documents for all to read. It is interesting to see what you are doing - although I wish there were legal advice you could rely on to assist you. That would be nice. However, it is still interesting to see you try like you do.; October 7, 2013 at 9:49 AM
A Lawyer said...: Since the subject of this thread is supposed to be Duke's motion to dismiss and Dr. Harr's response, I wonder if Dr. harr has any response to my post of October 5 at 4:15 PM, which lays out why his legal arguments are baseless.; October 7, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 9:25 AM wrote: "I didn't see any of the documents that Duke etc, filed in response to nutjob harr's non-suit. I assume you have to have a PACER account, right, Walt?"

Sid did post a link at the end of his flog. That's in keeping with his usual practice of making this website as user unfriendly as possible and forcing you to slog through him reading his posts before getting to the primary documents.

The only other option is a PACER account. Justia sometimes posts documents filed, but they have to be in noteworthy cases. So far Sid hasn't passed Justia's threshold for worthy.

Anonymous at 9:49 AM wrote: "When you mention case law at the end of your flog, what do you mean by that? What in your lawsuit can be used as case law by others?"

Unless the others are Duke University, Richard Brodhead or David Levy, there isn't much case law that is useful to others. Conversely, Sid did establish a pretty good record of why he is in violation of the doctrine of res judicata which Duke, Brodhead and Levy are using to great advantage against Sid.

Walt-in-Durham; October 7, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh, damn, I have to sit through him reading his nonsense? gag me...; October 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...: How can anybody tolerate listening to this lunatic talk? As my sainted, though rather plain-spoken grandmother would say, what a kingsize crock of hammered shit!

Somebody needs to tell Harr, up front, that he really should either take some speech therapy or let his daughter (or Victoria Queen Bigot) read his silliness. It's just about hurl-inducing to listen to eight minutes of his speech.; October 7, 2013 at 1:13 PM
Anonymous said...: I had to turn the volume down. Could not stomach the dribble. then, finally read the duke response. Hilarous.....if the right one don't get you, then the left one will....and oh, by the way, if the right one don't get you, and the left one misses, here's a swift kick to your ass.
In short, harr wasted taxpayer time, court time, and our time with his bullshit NON suit. Grandmama, you are right....what a crock!; October 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

After reading again about how laws do not equal justice, I say again your problem is you believe you, and other black people, e.g. Crystal, Shan Carter, are above the law.; October 7, 2013 at 1:39 PM
A Lawyer said...: Depending on when it was served, we can expect a motion to dismiss from the State of North Carolina shortly, which will argue the 11th Amendment, standing and Younger v. Harris.

The two federal judges get a longer time to respond to the Complaint (60 days rather than 21, per F.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(2)), but in due course, the U.S. Attorney's office will respond on their behalf, and move to dismiss based on absolute judicial immunity.; October 7, 2013 at 1:52 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You complain you did not get your day in court when you filed your frivolous lawsuit against Duke.

If you knew anything about the law, the act of filing a lawsuit does not entitle you to have your suit go to trial.

Your suit was without merit. That was obvious before any trial. That is why you didn't get a day in court. In a few words, you did not deserve one.; October 7, 2013 at 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...: I like muy grandmother's assessment......"what a crock of hammered shit"!; October 7, 2013 at 2:43 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "The bottom line is, the entire record is that Crystal, while drunk, stole a car, led police on a high speed chase and tried to run down a police officer.........." Not a word of this is true. She blew over the limit but she was not "drunk". The high speed was 15 mph over the posted limit. The chase was for about 50 yards. There was no intent to run down anybody. The Judge saw through all this and gave her three weekends about right for a first time over the limit in a 21 year old.; October 7, 2013 at 3:20 PM
Anonymous said...: bullshit, hissy boy.....bull SHIT. We all know what kind of pole vaulting drunken key stealing car thieving drunk driving crap you sainted sister was doing. you can sleep with it if you want to.........the rest of us will PASS. meantime, sell it somewhere else....
by the way, crybaby, she got a levelII DWI....AND she had priors for driving without a license... nine convictions, hissy baby; October 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Not a word of this is true. She blew over the limit but she was not "drunk". The high speed was 15 mph over the posted limit. The chase was for about 50 yards. There was no intent to run down anybody. The Judge saw through all this and gave her three weekends about right for a first time over the limit in a 21 year old."

First of all blowing over the limit is being legally drunk. When the limit is 0.08 and she blows 0.19 she is legally drunk.

Second, if you continue to believe a story that Crystal concocted years after the records of the event were generated, you have problems.; October 7, 2013 at 5:05 PM
Anonymous said...: The bottom line, Kenny, is that until you provide police reports and other direct sources, people are justified in concluding that you are a self-serving liar.

Johnsville News provided what they claimed were excepts from Deputy Carroll's report. They did not provide a link. The Herald Sun claimed to have obtained the police reports from which they quoted.

Johnsville News, while anonymous, has a good track record for the accuracy of their information. The Herald Sun had an abysmal record of covering the lacrosse case, but its bias was clearly pro-Nifong.

You, on the other hand, have no credibility.

Provide your sources. And answer my questions.; October 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

A review of the documents you have posted confirms that you are above the law.; October 7, 2013 at 5:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny claimed: The chase was for about 50 yards.

You are a liar.

At a speed of 70mph, one can travel 50 yards in about 1.5 seconds.; October 7, 2013 at 6:12 PM
Walt said...: From Crystal's book Last Dance for Grace: "I headed towards Raleigh with no headlights shining. I was going the opposite direction when I should have headed home which was not that far from the club. By now the taxi cab had been reported stolen, and soon the sirens came. There were police cars in hot pursuit.

I felt a jolt of sobriety. I thought, "Why me?" I just wanted to get home to my kids. I could not think about anything else right now. I needed to keep driving. Police cruisers were all around me and forced me into a parking lot. I sat there quietly for a moment, but then the alcohol started talking to me, "Back up now!" I did but there happened to be police are behind me. I crashed into the police cruiser. The criminal charges were starting to mount, and I had no clue."

Because it would be unethical of me to do a Lexis person search on Crystal, I won't. But, the Clerk of Courts has a public access terminal that provides NC criminal records. According to the Clerk's office Crystal was charged as follows:

- Felonious Assault with a Deadly Weapon on Police Officer, O2-CRS-49961
- Felonious Larceny and Felonious Possession of Stolen Vehicle charges, 02-CRS-49955
- Felonious Speeding to Elude Arrest, Driving while Impaired (.19 Blood Alcohol Content) and Driving while License Revoked, 02-CRS-49956
- Driving Left of Center, 02-CR-49958
Failure to Heed Blue Light and Siren and Reckless Driving in Wanton Disregard to Rights or Safety of Others, 02-CR-49959
- Driving the Wrong Way on Dual Lane Highway and Open Container After Consuming Alcohol, 02-CR-49960
- two counts of Injury to Personal Property, 02-CR-49962-63, and
- Resisting a Public Officer, 02-CR-49964

According to the same public record system she plead guilty to four misdemeanors: Speeding to elude arrest, assault against a government official, DWI level 3, and larceny.

The police reports and allocution hearing are more entertaining. The format of this blog doesn't really allow for complete recitation of the facts, but if you read the Herald-Sun story, it was an accurate rendition of the allocution hearing and police reports. You just can't make this stuff up.

Walt-in-Durham; October 7, 2013 at 8:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt - are you by any chance a durham city or the like government worker who thinks they can do whatever they want regardless of the civil rights it violates because ya'll just got a free pass to not be responsible for violating the civil rights of those of us who actually do have to consider civil rights in the decisions that we make?; October 8, 2013 at 12:23 AM
Anonymous said...: well this latest false flag in the making is developing on track ... unbelievable ... that our government would actually cause a major financial crisis over obamacare and lessen the security of this nation in such drastic ways after all the hype about security and public safety in recent years.

and ... the lacrosse case is shaping up nicely to cause even more confusion in the minds of some and many and pathing the way for government workers to follow nefarious commands blindly

according to youtube video 'news' predictions: fake aliens will emerge, another sun in our galaxy will be announced and make it presence known by hurling a foreign planet into the earth's planatary orbit, the antichrist will appear, we will all be (opps sorry ... only those in christ) will be raptured from the earth, comet ison will create havoc, the sun will turn its full fury in the earth's direction ... and we will all be dead ... except for them up yonder in them thar va mountain chambers or somethin, and whoevers left should start thinking bout either bulding arks or digging themselves deep holes to 'hide' in ... yeah ... ok .... right

hmmmmmmmmmm ....

wonder what's next?; October 8, 2013 at 2:41 AM
Anonymous said...: oh yeah ... can't forget the magnetic pole shift ... and global warming

that one is the only one i have seen in media as scientific reality - magnetic pole shifts, ice ages, and therefore global warming (else we'd be an ice planet)

oh yeah - then there's another pangean (sp?) type event predicted at some time in future - could you imagine being on part of a continent as it moved across the ocean rapidly - i wonder how long it would take to stop moving and how quickly it would move.; October 8, 2013 at 2:54 AM
Anonymous said...: ken Edwards consistently lies about Mangum. He omits what does not suit his narrative. The question I find of interest is why he lies. The truth of Mangum's record is easily obtainable.
She has never been arrested for prostitution. That's clear. How many sane people think Mangum was not selling herself for money? Do we really think that using a vibrator on oneself in the presence of strangers who pay you to do this act is not selling it? I believe in NC prostitution includes having intercourse for money, so maybe by the technical definition, using a vibrator isn't being a prostitute. But, honestly, folks.......do we really think Mangum, who had multiple male samples in and on her.....was not whoring for money?
And if she was, and still is, so what? Last time I checked, it takes two to make the deal......and her johns or janes are just as guilty of violating the law as Mangum. I personally believe we will always have hookers.....right or wrong.....and we will always have buyers.
It isn't Mangum's way of making a living that is problematic. It's the rest of it.......leading to this last and traumatic result.....the killing of another.
She has gotten a pass, over and over, in Durham. I hope, whatever the outcome of the Daye case, that she is finally held accountable and that she finally takes responsibility for her behavior.; October 8, 2013 at 3:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 8, 2013 at 12:23 AM

Walt - are you by any chance a durham city or the like government worker who thinks they can do whatever they want regardless of the civil rights it violates because ya'll just got a free pass to not be responsible for violating the civil rights of those of us who actually do have to consider civil rights in the decisions that we make?

So now you indulge in more impotent name calling, this time at Walt in Durham. What a sad excuse for a sad excuse of a humanbeing you are.; October 8, 2013 at 3:48 AM
Anonymous said...: ........"Walt - are you by any chance a durham city or the like government worker who thinks they can do whatever they want regardless of the civil rights it violates because ya'll just got a free pass to not be responsible for violating the civil rights of those of us who actually do have to consider civil rights in the decisions that we make?.............

An illustration of your brain on drugs.......take your meds, skippy.....; October 8, 2013 at 4:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Ya'll do throw some stones at the woman don't ya? Did you ever for once stop to think that your constant doing of such might just be part of her problem?

So now we get to watch ya'll tear up Ms. Mangum on this blog even more than we already watched cuz ya'll want to make sure she suffers as much as possible - will that truly make ya'll happy and feel all just and vindicated inside? seriously? She is just a victim in a much bigger game of people who should and have taken the blame - you do know that right?

The fact that her last lawyer quit to join the lawyers against her in the other civil case could be claimed as undue intimidation and coercement, etc., against her in both cases.; October 8, 2013 at 5:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Actually i just need more explanation of what the latest lacrosse cases are achieving so far, and what they truly mean when dealing with government employees if they too are confused as to what the latest case is revealing about the law and justice system and government relations in NC.

I do not understand how government workers can both enforce yet not be held accountable for civil rights laws? That is confusing.

You don't need meds for that i assure you - you need lawyers and legal experts - and a source that is available to truly explain what all of these cases really mean to every USA citizen - or those in certain states, districts, regions, etc.

Maybe I'll get a law degree some day if the world don't end soon - or at least the USA. I am beginning to see the benefit of doing so a little bit more each day.; October 8, 2013 at 5:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 8, 2013 at 5:07 AM

"Ya'll do throw some stones at the woman don't ya? Did you ever for once stop to think that your constant doing of such might just be part of her problem?

So now we get to watch ya'll tear up Ms. Mangum on this blog even more than we already watched cuz ya'll want to make sure she suffers as much as possible - will that truly make ya'll happy and feel all just and vindicated inside? seriously? She is just a victim in a much bigger game of people who should and have taken the blame - you do know that right?

The fact that her last lawyer quit to join the lawyers against her in the other civil case could be claimed as undue intimidation and coercement, etc., against her in both cases."

Poor Crystal. She falsely accuses men of raping her, tries to pass herself off as this struggling young single mother, and then the truth comes out. Did you ever think Crystal was the master of her own fate and could have prevented all of her troubles.

The people who harm her are people like SIDNEY HARR and KENHYDERAL who encourages her to believe she is a victim of nefarious white people.; October 8, 2013 at 5:47 AM
Anonymous said...: do you think you are the master of your own fate and that you can prevent all your problems then?; October 8, 2013 at 6:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 8, 2013 at 6:01 AM:

"do you think you are the master of your own fate and that you can prevent all your problems then?"

Crystal made choices. Most people in this world would have made different choices, e.g. most people would not steal a cab, lead police on a high speed chase and then try to run down a police officer. Crystal's problems are by and large the result of choices she made, not anyone's persecution of her.

Her problems are not the result of her being raped. What problems she has are due in great part to her falsely accusing innocent men of raping her.; October 8, 2013 at 6:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 8, 2013 at 6:01 AM:

Crystal's problems are more due to people like SIDNEY HARR than to stone throwers, SIDNEY promulgating the myth that Crystal is the accuser/victim in a rape case rather than the victimizer/false rape accuser.

How can Crystal change her life when she chooses to believe all her problems are due to someone else's activity?; October 8, 2013 at 6:45 AM
Anonymous said...: If she needed to be held accountable for the lacrosse case in any way - then AG Cooper had the opportunity to pursue that - and didn't. So therefore, continuing to heap more blame and shame and guilt and discriminatory hate filled actions against her are NOT acceptable. The same with the lacrosse players in that case are expected to be forgiven - so is she - since AG Cooper apparently forgave all (except for DA Nifong).

What ya'll do is NOT what she deserves i assure you. It says more about ya'll than her - as the saying goes - and it does.; October 8, 2013 at 7:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 8, 2013 at 7:39 AM:

If she needed to be held accountable for the lacrosse case in any way - then AG Cooper had the opportunity to pursue that - and didn't. So therefore, continuing to heap more blame and shame and guilt and discriminatory hate filled actions against her are NOT acceptable. The same with the lacrosse players in that case are expected to be forgiven - so is she - since AG Cooper apparently forgave all (except for DA Nifong).

What ya'll do is NOT what she deserves i assure you. It says more about ya'll than her - as the saying goes - and it does."

Maybe the people with whom you should take that up are SIDNEY HARR and KENHYDERAL, who have been publishing on the web for years that Crystal was raped and she did not get justice because of a fantastic, non credible conspiracy against her. The heartburn over the phoney rape case persists because people insist the innocent men are guilty.; October 8, 2013 at 8:10 AM
Anonymous said...: If that is what you think needs to be said to them - then say that.

But leave Ms. Mangum out of it - otherwise you are throwing more stones at her - which isn't right.

I am always aware that there are people who were and are held accountable for that mess that harmed and continues to harm many - and it wasn't her - so it wasn't her fault - got it?

Only she can pursue further rape charges if they apply - that is not ya'lls business and it is probably not legal to continue to intimidate her or anyone else not to.; October 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "if you read the Herald-Sun story, it was an accurate rendition of the allocution hearing and police reports"....... People in Durham tell me the Herald-Sun, nine times out of ten screw up. People who have given them an interview are usually dismayed by how they are misquoted and how often they screw up the facts. As for the Jonsville News, I give little credence to those who hide behind anonymity.; October 8, 2013 at 8:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM:

"If that is what you think needs to be said to them - then say that.

But leave Ms. Mangum out of it - otherwise you are throwing more stones at her - which isn't right.

I am always aware that there are people who were and are held accountable for that mess that harmed and continues to harm many - and it wasn't her - so it wasn't her fault - got it?

Only she can pursue further rape charges if they apply - that is not ya'lls business and it is probably not legal to continue to intimidate her or anyone else not to."

So long as SIDNEY calls Crystal the victim/accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, as long as SIDNEY continues to insist Crystal is the victim of retaliation for accusing the innocent men of rape, there is no way to leave her out of it.; October 8, 2013 at 8:35 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"As for the Jonsville News, I give little credence to those who hide behind anonymity."

That's OK. We give no credence to your belief in Crystal's obviously fabricated story about the cab theft, to your belief in the existence in Kilgo's anonymous Lacrosse player friend, or to you, for that matter.; October 8, 2013 at 8:38 AM
Anonymous said...: .......The fact that her last lawyer quit to join the lawyers against her in the other civil case could be claimed as undue intimidation and coercement, etc., against her in both cases."...

Oh, poster, you really do need to get some help, bro. Another absolute lie on your part. Is it that you think you can get away with lying....or...are you so used to telling lies that it just comes naturally. sad, really really sad....; October 8, 2013 at 8:42 AM
Anonymous said...: I actually read the trash that was Mangum's godawful, excuse the term, "book". To call it a book is to insult writers everywhere.
Once again grandma would say, "what a crock of hammered shit"
The cover is hilarious, too.....it depicts a ballerina-looking chick, dancing.... Gosh, somebody must have forgotten to include Mangum's favorite twerking position and the pole.; October 8, 2013 at 8:46 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "The people who harm her are people like SIDNEY HARR and KENHYDERAL who encourages her to believe she is a victim of nefarious white people".......
This has nothing to do with race and those who want to bring race into it are guilty of projection. The seven years of calumny that the gutter press and the the hate blogs like Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers and Durham in Wonderland, columnists like Michael Gaynor and hate mongers like Joan Foster have subjected Crystal to have, unjustly, damaged her reputation and led most people to think ill of this kind and good person. People, like myself and Dr.Harr, try, often vainly, to defend her against this well orchestrated, nefarious, onslaught.; October 8, 2013 at 8:57 AM
Anonymous said...: ..."the kind and good person?"....the one who said, "I'm going to fxxx you up"...and killed Reginald Daye? That one?
the kind and good person who vandalized Walker's car? Started a fire in the presence of her own children? That one?
LIED without one single shred of conscience and would have happily sent innocent men to prison? that one?
Stole a car, drove like a maniac on a public street, drove drunk, tried to run over an officer?
Exposed her children to her drug use, drinking, being a sex worker, leaving them with others for extended periods, bringing them into environments where she was shacking up with men? that one?

Yep, it's all the evil white people like Rae Evans who have caused poor Sister to have such a crappy existence. You betcha, troll.

Seems to me that you should just swoop down to good old Durham from the desert (or wherever you claim to be) and adopt poor Mangum.; October 8, 2013 at 9:08 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"As for the Jonsville News, I give little credence to those who hide behind anonymity."

But you give a lot of credence to Kilgo's anonymous Lacrosse player friend and his statement that he witnessed Crystal being raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

Can we say hypocrite boys and girls.; October 8, 2013 at 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"This has nothing to do with race and those who want to bring race into it are guilty of projection."

Your boy SIDNEY is saying that Crystal is the victim of a North Carolina Justice system that is prejudiced against black people. If it has nothing to do with race, why does SIDNEY say that?

"The seven years of calumny that the gutter press and the the hate blogs like Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers and Durham in Wonderland, columnists like Michael Gaynor and hate mongers like Joan Foster have subjected Crystal to have, unjustly, damaged her reputation and led most people to think ill of this kind and good person."

You promulgate another lie. There is no organized media campaign to discredit Crystal. The truth about Crystal has is what has thoroughly discredited her. Plus your belief that a piece of hearsay from a source whom you can not prove even exists is credible evidence that Crystal was raped.

"People, like myself and Dr.Harr, try, often vainly, to defend her against this well orchestrated, nefarious, onslaught."

You and SIDNEY are trying to promulgate lies, like the fabricated CYA story Crystal manufactured about her theft of the cab. And the lie that Crystal was raped on the night of 13/14 March 2006.; October 8, 2013 at 9:19 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "You promulgate another lie. There is no organized media campaign to discredit Crystal. The truth about Crystal has is what has thoroughly discredited her. Plus your belief that a piece of hearsay from a source whom you can not prove even exists is credible evidence that Crystal was raped....... Who is it that Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers claim they want to stop. That screed was doing it's dirty work long before I ever came on the scene. What I find credible is what Crystal told me happened. This coincides with what Kilgo told me an eye-witness told him. I find no credibility with the orchestrated campaign to discredit her. Now that the greedy law-suit has been appealed I see it's starting up again in earnest.; October 8, 2013 at 9:56 AM
Anonymous said...: I just love the nefarious, calumny ........oooooo, such big flowery words.....
maybe the notion is that dressing up a pig in a prom dress will make it smell less like a pig.; October 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Who is it that Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers claim they want to stop."

You(you lie about Crystal being raped), SIDNEY(who lies about the carpetbagger jihad), Crystal(who lied about being raped), corrupt DA NIFONG, Victoria Peterson(Victory Poo Poo according to Honey Boo Boo-now isn't that precious), Justice58, the New Black Panthers, Karla Holloway, Houston the farm animal Baker, the perenially forthcoming Wahneema Lubiano, the rest of the gang of 88, the potbangers, Mark Gottlieb among others.

"That screed was doing it's dirty work long before I ever came on the scene."

Crystal was lying before you ever came on the scene.

"What I find credible is what Crystal told me happened. This coincides with what Kilgo told me an eye-witness told him."

Which means you, who say you give no credence to those who hide behind anonymity, give a lot of credence to a piece of hearsay from an anonymous source, the existence of whom you can not prove.

"I find no credibility with the orchestrated campaign to discredit her. Now that the greedy law-suit has been appealed I see it's starting up again in earnest."

There was no orchestrated campaign except to convict the innocent men Crystal lied about, even though it was obvious Crystal lied. I say again, no one finds any credibility in you, except your fellow liars.; October 8, 2013 at 10:11 AM
Anonymous said...: PROVE SHE WAS RAPED, TROLL....PROVE OR SHUT UP.; October 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Should have said "put up or shut up".....
you rant constantly about how to believe a liar....that's fine....your right to do so. It's also other people's right to challenge you to provide ONE tiny little shred of proof that Mangum was raped.....just one, Kenny Troll. and, no, her story is not proof.
By the way, if Mangum wasn't selling it, how do you explain the presence of 4-5 OTHER male samples in and on her? either she was having sex with a bunch of guys, at the same time, or she was putting out on a regular basis....just to be friendly.; October 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
You are, simply put, a racist liar...attention seeking pathetic old man.

The only thing that I am seeking is equal justice for all Tar Heelians.; October 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Walt has answered this question at least twice, A Lawyer has answered it once and I have answered it once. You are apparently the only one who does not understand or pretends not to understand.

Lesser included charge.

For example, if you were able to establish that an esophageal intubation was an intervening cause because it was not related to the stabbing (I said establish, not just allege) due to another independent cause (such as the DTs if not related to the stabbing) the state could continue to pursue assault charges even as it could no longer pursue murder or manslaughter.

Does this establish the foundation for the question about you acting like a fool.

So you admit that assault does not fall under a murder charge.

What I don't understand is why the prosecution doesn't file an assault and battery charge and give it a case number... which it obviously does not have. Is the prosecution just lazy, or what?; October 8, 2013 at 1:02 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The only thing that I am seeking is equal justice for all Tar Heelians."

LIE!!!

You are seeking attention for yourself.

Since when is seeking a pass for a felony murderer who killed an 8 year old boy justice. It sounds like an attempt to subvert justice.; October 8, 2013 at 1:07 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sidney notes: Duke could of [sic] defused the entire incident...

You never proved that you did not precipitate the incident by acting like an arrogant asshole, much as you (and admittedly many of your antagonists) do on this board.

I did provide proof... the audio recording. On it I repeatedly asked the security guard why I was being kicked off campus. He did not know. He said that he was instructed to have me removed from Duke property, and that he was merely doing his job.

All the security guard did was threaten to arrest me, but could not give me a reason for nearly arresting me. Had I not had the fortune of running into James Coleman I would have been arrested. No doubt about that.; October 8, 2013 at 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"So you admit that assault does not fall under a murder charge."

No the poster did not. Read what Walt tried to teach you about Lesser Included Charge.

"What I don't understand is why the prosecution doesn't file an assault and battery charge and give it a case number... which it obviously does not have. Is the prosecution just lazy, or what?"

The only reason for that is that you are will not submit to elucidation. It is a reflection of your belief you are above the law.; October 8, 2013 at 1:10 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Duke could of easily defused the entire incident, but chose instead to bully me."

In what way? You were trespassing on Duke's property and acting inappropriately. You could have prevented the situation by behaving appropriately.

First of all, I was not trespassing. Duke University solicited me to the event with advertisement about an event open to the public... there was no mention of Nifong supporters being prohibited from attending. At the end of the program I was heading for the exit of the building for the purpose of going home when the security guard intercepted me and began to harass me.

You were not there, so I would be interested in you telling me how I was behaving inappropriately?; October 8, 2013 at 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
I did provide proof... the audio recording. On it I repeatedly asked the security guard why I was being kicked off campus. He did not know. He said that he was instructed to have me removed from Duke property, and that he was merely doing his job."

You provided proof that you got out of line when the security guard requested you to leave.

"All the security guard did was threaten to arrest me, but could not give me a reason for nearly arresting me."

The reason was obvious from your recording, you got out of line when you refused to comply with the Security Guard's instruction to leave.

"Had I not had the fortune of running into James Coleman I would have been arrested. No doubt about that."

Judging from what is on your recording, saying you ran into Professor Coleman is a bit misleading. It would have been more accurate to say you tried to drag an unwilling Professor Coleman into your confrontation with the Security Guard.; October 8, 2013 at 1:14 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Duke is private property. Duke has established policies concerning solicitation. You violated those policies. Period. Duke had every right to require you to leave its property. You are doing nothing but trying to make some money.......and we all know it.

Make money? Are you kidding? How?

I did not violate any Duke policy, however, Duke did violate its own anti-discrimination policy by attacking me because of my secular thoughts and beliefs.; October 8, 2013 at 1:16 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"
I did provide proof... the audio recording. On it I repeatedly asked the security guard why I was being kicked off campus. He did not know. He said that he was instructed to have me removed from Duke property, and that he was merely doing his job."

You provided proof that you got out of line when the security guard requested you to leave.

"All the security guard did was threaten to arrest me, but could not give me a reason for nearly arresting me."

The reason was obvious from your recording, you got out of line when you refused to comply with the Security Guard's instruction to leave.

"Had I not had the fortune of running into James Coleman I would have been arrested. No doubt about that."

Judging from what is on your recording, saying you ran into Professor Coleman is a bit misleading. It would have been more accurate to say you tried to drag an unwilling Professor Coleman into your confrontation with the Security Guard.

What part of "I was heading for the exit to leave when the security guard intercepted me" don't you understand?; October 8, 2013 at 1:17 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
Dr. Harr -
You referenced the "Brooklyn Nine-Nine" show in your response to Duke's motion to dismiss.

That's pretty much all anyone needs to know about your response AND your "legal expertise".

You should have to pay for the time it takes someone to actually read your drivel.

Supreme Poster, did you watch that episode of "Brooklyn Nine-Nine?"; October 8, 2013 at 1:20 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
The truth about sidney harr can be found in the IndyWeek article. There is far more to the story and I would expect that it will all come out. and soon

Don't count on it. They gave it their best shot.; October 8, 2013 at 1:22 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sounds very clear to me that professor coleman wanted nothing more than to get away from wingnut harr as quickly as possible. and the security guard was completely appropriate, professional, and did his job. harr was asked to leave, argued/questioned and did not immediately leave....that's tresspass. and, sidney, even though you are apparently too intellectually challenged to understand, Duke is private property and they have a right to insist you leave their property. In fact, they do not have to have a reason! If you come to my home for a garage sale, open to the public, and I decide I don't want you on my property, for whatever reason I wish, I can tell you to leave.....and, if you don't, I can call the police and have you removed. Don't like it, tough shit

So, in other words, you are saying what I have been saying... that according to the law, Duke University has the right to discriminate!

Now if you have a garage sale at your home and invite the public, that is much different than Duke University because you do not have more than fifteen employees at home and you do not receive millions of federal tax dollars. Duke University is no small time "Mom and Pop" operation... like you (no offense).; October 8, 2013 at 1:27 PM
Anonymous said...: what an idiot.......duke is private property, asshat. they have the right to have you removed. period. the number of employees and the federal dollars received obviously have nothing to do with it. god, what a damned idiot you are.
you tried to extort money by filing yet another stupid nonsuit and you got your ass kicked, yet again.......nice try, wingnut.; October 8, 2013 at 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: There is more to come on Harr's background. wait and see, folks. the fun is just beginning....; October 8, 2013 at 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Duke obviously did not discriminate against you. You can run your mouth till hell freezes over and it won't change a thing. You had no case. Never did.; October 8, 2013 at 2:00 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "What I don't understand is why the prosecution doesn't file an assault and battery charge and give it a case number... which it obviously does not have. Is the prosecution just lazy, or what?"

You just don't want to learn. That's all to your discredit. However, the simple answer, for at least the eighth time is lesser included offense.

Walt-in-Durham; October 8, 2013 at 2:07 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "First of all, I was not trespassing."

Yes you were. The instant the security guard told you to leave he was giving you notice under NCGS § 14‑159.13(a)(1). Upon receipt of that notice, you were trespassing. Not before, but from the moment of the notice on, you were trespassing.

There. Consider yourself enlightened for the second time on this issue.

Walt-in-Durham; October 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"First of all, I was not trespassing. Duke University solicited me to the event with advertisement about an event open to the public... there was no mention of Nifong supporters being prohibited from attending."

Maybe you could post an image of how Duke advertised the event. Unless Duke said specifically you, SIDNEY, were invited to attend, I say you can not make a claim you were solicited to come on to their property. You describe it, it was an event open to the public on a first come first served basis.

"At the end of the program I was heading for the exit of the building for the purpose of going home when the security guard intercepted me and began to harass me."

Judging from what is on the recording, you were the one harassing the Security guard. If you were leaving, why did you not say to the guard, I am complying, rather than get into an argument with him?

"You were not there, so I would be interested in you telling me how I was behaving inappropriately?"

Funny statement. You were not there at the Reginald Daye autopsy but you can declare that the autopsy was fraudulent. You were not there when Reginald Daye was intubated and subjected to direct laryngoscopy but you declare he died of an esophageal intubation.; October 8, 2013 at 2:15 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"What part of "I was heading for the exit to leave when the security guard intercepted me" don't you understand?"

What I do not understand is why you picked a fight with the guard if you were in compliance with his direction to you to leave.; October 8, 2013 at 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Make money? Are you kidding? How?

I did not violate any Duke policy, however, Duke did violate its own anti-discrimination policy by attacking me because of my secular thoughts and beliefs."

You may not have been trying to make money. You were violating Duke's no solicitation policy. In evicting you from its property, Duke was violating none of your rights. An invitation to attend an event open to the public does not establish any right of yours to be present on Duke's property. That you think you had such a right again shows how fervently you believe you are above the law.; October 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "So, in other words, you are saying what I have been saying... that according to the law, Duke University has the right to discriminate!"

Against Nifong supporters, yes they do. Nifong supporters are not a protected by the civil rights statutes.

"Now if you have a garage sale at your home and invite the public, that is much different than Duke University because you do not have more than fifteen employees at home and you do not receive millions of federal tax dollars. Duke University is no small time "Mom and Pop" operation... like you (no offense)."

Again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the law. Since you have so woefully misrepresented the law, let me try and explain it.

Garage sale or Walmart, the owner invites people in to do business. That is a permissive use and thus the customer is entitled to be on the property. However, the land owner may decide not to permit a certain person, in law called an invitee onto his property. If the land owner or his representative gives notice to the invitee that he or she is no longer permitted on the property, then the former invitee must leave. He or she has just become a trespasser. NCGS § 14‑159.13(a)(1).

Walt-in-Durham; October 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Anonymous said...
The truth about sidney harr can be found in the IndyWeek article. There is far more to the story and I would expect that it will all come out. and soon

Don't count on it. They gave it their best shot."

I remember you said at one time there were no skeletons in your closet. The Indy Weekly article showed there were plenty of skeletons in your closets. Since you graduated from Medical School, you never in your career achieved the status of experienced physician.; October 8, 2013 at 2:23 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 2:20 PM wrote: "... That you think you had such a right again shows how fervently you believe you are above the law."

Ding-Ding-Ding, ladies and gentlemen we have a winner.

Walt-in-Durham; October 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "I did provide proof... the audio recording. On it I repeatedly asked the security guard why I was being kicked off campus. "

Which proves your trespass. You just can't make up foolishness like this.

Walt-in-Durham; October 8, 2013 at 2:27 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"So, in other words, you are saying what I have been saying... that according to the law, Duke University has the right to discriminate!"

Irrelevant since Duke did not discriminate against you. You picked a fight with a security guard when he told you you were supposed to leave. I say again, if you were already on your way out, you had no cause to pick a fight. The recording you provided says loud and clear you picked a fight.

"Now if you have a garage sale at your home and invite the public, that is much different than Duke University because you do not have more than fifteen employees at home and you do not receive millions of federal tax dollars. Duke University is no small time "Mom and Pop" operation... like you (no offense)."

If I had a garage sale at my home and you showed up to pass out your business cards and solicit people to visit your web sight, I would have directed you to leave. And, you WOULD have tried to file discrimination charges against me, probably arguing that there was nothing at the yard sale to say you were not allowed to pass out your business cards.; October 8, 2013 at 2:28 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You say you were not trying to make money at Duke.

You have repeatedly blogged how the Lacrosse players shook Duke down for $20 million apiece. I recall you blogging once if anyone deserved $20 million from Duke you did. It seems to me you sued Duke in the deluded belief you could shake them down for big bucks.

Getting back to the issue of, You were not there, you were not present at the settlement negotiations between the innocent, falsely accused, victimized Lacrosse players and Duke. Yet you expect people to believe you know what took place.

Can we again say hypocrisy boys and girls.; October 8, 2013 at 2:34 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

From one of my earlier comments:

If I had a garage sale at my home and you showed up to pass out your business cards and solicit people to visit your web sight, I would have directed you to leave. And, you WOULD have tried to file discrimination charges against me, probably arguing that there was nothing at the yard sale to say you were not allowed to pass out your business cards."

You said something that there was nothing saying Nifong supporters were not welcome. What was there to say that you, as a Nifong supporter, were entitled to pass out your business cards and urge people to visit your web site.

I doubt if the people who attended the event did so expecting to be solicited to visit your web site.

I say again, being a nifong supporter is the same as an athletic supporter for a eunuch.; October 8, 2013 at 2:37 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Clarification:

SIDNEY HARR:

"What part of "I was heading for the exit to leave when the security guard intercepted me" don't you understand?"

What I do not understand is why you picked a fight with the guard if you were in compliance with his direction to you to leave.

If you were on your way out, you could have told the guard that and the guard would have let you go. Instead you picked a fight with the guard. That you picked a fight with the guard is evident from your recording.; October 8, 2013 at 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

You claim you were solicited to attend the event at Duke Law School.

Was there anything which authorized you to pass out your business cards or solicit people to visit your web site.

The purpose of the event was to allow people to hear a conversation between a Supreme Court Justice and a Law School Professor.

Common courtesy would have told you that the other attendees not there to hear your support for corrupt DA NIFONG.

I suspect that never occurred to you because of your ridiculous belief that your campaign is something as momentous as Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat.

Boy are you deluded and megalomaniacal.; October 8, 2013 at 2:58 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Considering your own exalted idea of yourself, what really p---ed you off was that instead of welcoming your solicitations for your support of corrupt DA NIFONG people complained about it.

You are really upet that most people consider you a crock rather than anyone significant.; October 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney,

I will make one last attempt at explaining the concept of lesser included charges.

Assume that Meier argues, as you have suggested, that Daye's death was due to an esophageal intubation. He argues either that the intubation was not caused by the stab wound, even indirectly, but as a result of an independent cause unrelated to the stabbing. Alternatively, he argues that Mangum should not be responsible for Duke's malpractice, and if the law makes her responsible, then the law is unjust and must be ignored.

Assume that the jury accepts this jury nullification argument and concludes that Mangum is not responsible for Daye's death.

Contrary to your expectation, Mangum is not yet cleared of all charges. Because the jury decided that Mangum was not responsible for the death, murder and manslaughter are off the table. However, jury will still be required to decide whether she is criminally responsible for the stabbing. The prosecution is not required to file more charges to require the jury to decide this because it is a lesser charge already included in the murder charge.

If the jury does not accept the self defense plea, Mangum could be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony. She could be sentenced to time served or could be required to serve some additional time. This option would be part of the instructions.

Your efforts to challenge the autopsy at best can only eliminate the death related charges. However, the stabbing remains.; October 8, 2013 at 4:13 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm guessing plea deal, Walt. And soon. Mangum has no case for self defense. It's gonna be manslaughter and I bet it's time served and, maybe, a bit more. Hard to believe a jury would convict her on murder.....and just as hard to believe her attorney would be foolish enough to put her on the stand.
Of course, if Mangum insists on going to trial.....and winds up in prison for a long time......that wouldn't surprise me.; October 8, 2013 at 6:31 PM
Anonymous said...: I think it is quite reasonable to assume that Mangum reads this web site on a regular basis. In fact, I bet she posts here. At the very least, she reads all that is said.......and mu guess is that she is communicating with Harr and his merry little band of local yokels.; October 8, 2013 at 6:32 PM
Anonymous said...: It would be nice to know that a person from the public could go into the Duke law school and receive just and legal treatment by the staff and employees working there.

Or, that, if for some reason there is human err in that regard, that the Duke legal school would ensure that any errors of conduct by any of its employees or staff would be corrected in a way that did not further harm the person of the public in any way if no harm is intended. If harm is intended by not rectifying the first harm made in human error, than that needs to be explained as well, as there should be no reason to harm a person from the public if they have been invited into the Duke law school property or any other Duke property unless there is legal reason which to do so.

If Dr. Harr was solicitating and that was a problem - then asking Dr. Harr to stop solicitating would be the legal solution - not just kicking him off the property for no apparent reason - therefore causing emotional & psychological harm and suffering, and legal loss of rights to a environment that causes no harm of any regard to the invited public.

Duke could have just as easily warned and educated Dr. Harr of the law of nonsolicitation on Duke, and Dr. Harr, being a reasonable person in that regard, would have surely ceased solicitation immediately if he had not done so already by the time approached by the guards, and left the property on his own regard as he was doing.

Sounds simple enough.

Duke should NOT just kick people off their property without sound reason and sound practices if they also offer critical and lawfully ordained health care services at their hospitals. There is obvious loss of ability to psychologically and emotionally and even legally enter into that type of agreement between patient and doctor that is required for sound medical services at the point when Duke decides to just kick someone off their property because 'they can'.

what bs that is
It shows how either very stupid, or very evil, or very every bit of both they are in my opinion, which is what matters to most when choosing and accepting health services, their own opinions based upon what they know to be true - for them and others, regardless of what others may feel is right for themselves. It would seem that this would be a very big concern to many that Duke would take responsibility for in their dealings with the public Dr. Harr. Sad and disappointing to see Duke be this way to you or others, as most hope for intelligence when dealing with Duke, and are sorely left bereft when they are dealt with in opposite manners. They are wrong in that regard, as they are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to understand what they are doing, so they therefore are intentionally malicious in this regard, and lead others to imitate their intentional malicious behavior toward others as well - which makes them evil (or illegal) in that regard.; October 8, 2013 at 6:49 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anti-solicitation policies at most Universities including I'm sure at Duke are there to protect the staff and students from un-wanted marketing. Using this policy to justify the eviction of someone for handing out a business card containing a web-address is a complete stretch. Any reasonable person can see that this is simply a feeble excuse for what was done to Dr.Harr; not for soliciting but because of his reputation for promoting ideas inimical to their agenda. I wager that no poster, here, other then Dr.Harr, would be tossed off Duke or any other University Campus for the same actions; October 8, 2013 at 9:45 PM
Anonymous said...: First, troll, you do NOT know what went on in that law school setting and you do NOT know how Harr behaved. We heard a portion of what went on....only a portion. We have only Harr's version of events....and, based on his history of lying....I would be willing to bet he has lied here, too.
Second, Duke has the right to have anyone removed.....just as Walt has explained over and over.....Harr was trespassing when he was told to leave and did not immediately leave. He claims he was leaving and then argues with the guard, persisting in asking WHY he was asked to leave. Bull shit. Harr saw an opportunity to make money by conjuring up an "injury" and, just as he had done in the past, saw an opportunity to file a suit.
Third, when did Harr get the permission of Coleman and the security to audio tape them, huh?
Fourth, the guard was doing his job and did not professionally.
Fifth, it is obvious from the tape that all Coleman wanted to do was get away.....
The non-case is settled. Done and over. I hope Harr has some money in his wallet because he is getting close to being held accountable for his nuisance actions.; October 9, 2013 at 2:49 AM
Anonymous said...: No, i think duke should show more professional decorum not to get into these kinds of legal entanglements with others.

There is no reason for it - as they are intelligent and profess too many times in too many areas of professional life and death situations to be wise enough to be trusted in such things - to cause these type senseless legal squabbles with persons of the public to exist. Especially when they could so easily avoid and handle these type situations in a MUCH MORE PROFESSIONAL manner that causes no harm to any.

I mean, give me a break, any elementary grade child would be expected to solve their problems better than what you see exibited in this latest case between Dr. Harr and Duke as professional behavior and treatment of others by Duke.

Hard to watch them stoop so low
... seriously.; October 9, 2013 at 3:23 AM
Anonymous said...: The Duke security guard behaved with complete professionalism. He handled the situation exactly according to protocol. I work in an organization very similar and I can say, without doubt, we would have instructed our security guard to behave much the same........to inform Harr that he had to leave....and, if Harr refused, to inform him that he could be arrested. (for trespass).
Duke did absolutely nothing imappropriate. Coleman clearly did NOT want to get involved.
Harr should have immediately ceased whatever he was doing and left. Period. He was the one violating the tresspass law at that point.
As the documents showed, Duke was in no way acting under the "state" provision. The ONLY person Harr could have gone after was the police officer, not the security guard.....and the police officer did nothing wrong. Walt tried to explain all this to Harr......who obviously refused to listen.....as usual.
By the way, you can argue till hell freezes over. THIS CASE IS SETTLED. PERIOD. THE COURT(S) FOUND AGAINST HARR.......PERIOD.; October 9, 2013 at 4:50 AM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Anti-solicitation policies at most Universities including I'm sure at Duke are there to protect the staff and students from un-wanted marketing."

Exactly right. That was what Sid was doing, marketing his website.

"Using this policy to justify the eviction of someone for handing out a business card containing a web-address is a complete stretch."

Sid was marketing his website. The exact issue which, according to you, Duke wanted to avoid. No stretch there.

"Any reasonable person can see that this is simply a feeble excuse for what was done to Dr.Harr; not for soliciting but because of his reputation for promoting ideas inimical to their agenda."

Which if true is the basis for their policy to begin with. Regardless, supporting Nifong is not protected under our laws or our constitution. Thus Duke, a private institution, was well within its rights to toss him off the premises. When he was placed on notice, he had no choice but to leave. He failed to do that. Instead, he behaved like a petulent child.

Walt-in-Durham; October 9, 2013 at 6:22 AM
Anonymous said...: So your saying that asking why you are being tossed off the premises of duke and expecting a reply more reasonable than cuz we want you gone is asking too much of duke?

That in many minds is asking too much of other people's well being in the realm of health services and trust and psychological harm arising from the miscommunicated conflict and perceived disregard of the persons likely dependence on dukes health services or other professionally reliable services and public offerings - as well as creating unnecessary potential professional or whatever standing losses that might occur for either side of the conflict.

Seems like a lot of risk for all parties that could be mitigated by duke handling their tossing people out and aside issues by leading in a more professional way that sets respectful examples of nonhostile communication and mediation to avoid full blown conflicts. Otherwise the appearance of prejudice and discrimination becomes a potential in perception, and obviously when guns and health services are involved, it would seem like a more professional and prudent thing to do for all to avoid these unnessary risks mitigated easily by better communication techniques and more respectful handling of people and situations as they arise.; October 9, 2013 at 7:04 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anti-solicitation policies at most Universities including I'm sure at Duke are there to protect the staff and students from un-wanted marketing. Using this policy to justify the eviction of someone for handing out a business card containing a web-address is a complete stretch. Any reasonable person can see that this is simply a feeble excuse for what was done to Dr.Harr; not for soliciting but because of his reputation for promoting ideas inimical to their agenda. I wager that no poster, here, other then Dr.Harr, would be tossed off Duke or any other University Campus for the same actions".

You would win your wager because no other poster, except you maybe, would espouse the cause of distorting why corrupt DA NIFONG was disbarred.

The deal was, SIDNEY wa mot solicited by Duke to visit its campus. Duke advertised an event to which the public was invited to attend on a first come first served basis.

No one else would have attended the event with the intent of using the event as a venue for soliciting, I say again, soliciting support for a pet cause. Someone brought that to the attention of the authorities. The authorities directed SIDNEY to leave.

SIDNEY claims he was already on his way home. Then why did he pick a fight with the security guard instead of just leaving?

Then Professor Coleman did not intervene ob SIDNEY's behalf. SIDNEY tried to involve Professor Coleman, against his will, in the confrontation.

SIDNEY's rights were not violated, except maybe the "right" he conferred upon himself to be above the law.; October 9, 2013 at 8:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
It would be nice to know that a person from the public could go into the Duke law school and receive just and legal treatment by the staff and employees working there.

Or, that, if for some reason there is human err in that regard, that the Duke legal school would ensure that any errors of conduct by any of its employees or staff would be corrected in a way that did not further harm the person of the public in any way if no harm is intended. If harm is intended by not rectifying the first harm made in human error, than that needs to be explained as well, as there should be no reason to harm a person from the public if they have been invited into the Duke law school property or any other Duke property unless there is legal reason which to do so.

If Dr. Harr was solicitating and that was a problem - then asking Dr. Harr to stop solicitating would be the legal solution - not just kicking him off the property for no apparent reason - therefore causing emotional & psychological harm and suffering, and legal loss of rights to a environment that causes no harm of any regard to the invited public.

Duke could have just as easily warned and educated Dr. Harr of the law of nonsolicitation on Duke, and Dr. Harr, being a reasonable person in that regard, would have surely ceased solicitation immediately if he had not done so already by the time approached by the guards, and left the property on his own regard as he was doing.

Sounds simple enough.

Duke should NOT just kick people off their property without sound reason and sound practices if they also offer critical and lawfully ordained health care services at their hospitals. There is obvious loss of ability to psychologically and emotionally and even legally enter into that type of agreement between patient and doctor that is required for sound medical services at the point when Duke decides to just kick someone off their property because 'they can'.

what bs that is
It shows how either very stupid, or very evil, or very every bit of both they are in my opinion, which is what matters to most when choosing and accepting health services, their own opinions based upon what they know to be true - for them and others, regardless of what others may feel is right for themselves. It would seem that this would be a very big concern to many that Duke would take responsibility for in their dealings with the public Dr. Harr. Sad and disappointing to see Duke be this way to you or others, as most hope for intelligence when dealing with Duke, and are sorely left bereft when they are dealt with in opposite manners. They are wrong in that regard, as they are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to understand what they are doing, so they therefore are intentionally malicious in this regard, and lead others to imitate their intentional malicious behavior toward others as well - which makes them evil (or illegal) in that regard.

Thank you for your intelligent, sensible, and enlightening comment. It deserves repeating (above).; October 9, 2013 at 8:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 9, 2013 at 3:23 AM

"No, i think duke should show more professional decorum not to get into these kinds of legal entanglements with others."

The fallacy here is your claim that you can think.

"There is no reason for it - as they are intelligent and profess too many times in too many areas of professional life and death situations to be wise enough to be trusted in such things - to cause these type senseless legal squabbles with persons of the public to exist. Especially when they could so easily avoid and handle these type situations in a MUCH MORE PROFESSIONAL manner that causes no harm to any."

There was a reason for it.Duke hosted an event. With the exception of SIDNEY, people attended the event to hear Justice Breyer. SIDNEY attended the event to solicit support for his pet cause, the rather heinous cause of distorting why corrupt DA NIFONG was disbarred. Even if SIDNEY had a worthy cause, he disrupted the event by SOLICITING for it.

"I mean, give me a break, any elementary grade child would be expected to solve their problems better than what you see exibited in this latest case between Dr. Harr and Duke as professional behavior and treatment of others by Duke."

Give us a break. Do you expect anyone to believe SIDNEY behaved in a professional and considerate manner. SIDNEY brought his troubles on himself, not the least by getting into a fight with the security guard and then trying to involve Professor Coleman in that fight.

"Hard to watch them stoop so low
... seriously."

That is because you have stooped too low yourself to watch anything objectivly.; October 9, 2013 at 8:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous October 9, 2013 at 7:04 AM

"So your saying that asking why you are being tossed off the premises of duke and expecting a reply more reasonable than cuz we want you gone is asking too much of duke?

That in many minds is asking too much of other people's well being in the realm of health services and trust and psychological harm arising from the miscommunicated conflict and perceived disregard of the persons likely dependence on dukes health services or other professionally reliable services and public offerings - as well as creating unnecessary potential professional or whatever standing losses that might occur for either side of the conflict.

Seems like a lot of risk for all parties that could be mitigated by duke handling their tossing people out and aside issues by leading in a more professional way that sets respectful examples of nonhostile communication and mediation to avoid full blown conflicts. Otherwise the appearance of prejudice and discrimination becomes a potential in perception, and obviously when guns and health services are involved, it would seem like a more professional and prudent thing to do for all to avoid these unnessary risks mitigated easily by better communication techniques and more respectful handling of people and situations as they arise."

Boy are you stupid. SIDNEY was asked to leave because he disrupted a Duke hosted event by soliciting support for his pet cause.; October 9, 2013 at 8:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"What part of "I was heading for the exit to leave when the security guard intercepted me" don't you understand?"

What I do not understand is why you picked a fight with the guard if you were in compliance with his direction to you to leave.

Didn't you hear on the audio the guard repeatedly threatening to arrest me? My question is: What For?? I didn't pick a fight with him. This was a pre-arranged ambush.; October 9, 2013 at 8:18 AM
Anonymous said...: sounds like sidney is responding to his daughter??? himself?? mistrail-recluse?
the poster has learned a new word. Notice it? "mitigated".....isn't that just grand....; October 9, 2013 at 8:22 AM
Anonymous said...: This same grammar-challenged wingnut posts over on DIW....... hilarious.; October 9, 2013 at 8:24 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:04 AM wrote: "So your saying that asking why you are being tossed off the premises of duke and expecting a reply more reasonable than cuz we want you gone is asking too much of duke?"

Duke, Walmart, the mom and pop garage sale, the same law applies. I need to give Sid credit where it is due. After he got control of himself back in Raleigh, he did the right thing and wrote Duke asking for an explanation. Giving Duke credit, they gave him an explanation in writing. Initially, Sid behaved badly and violated the trespass statute. But, he got it together and did what the law and justice expects. He didn't much like Duke's answer so he rather foolishly filed a lawsuit that did not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

"Seems like a lot of risk for all parties that could be mitigated by duke handling their tossing people out and aside issues by leading in a more professional way that sets respectful examples of nonhostile communication and mediation to avoid full blown conflicts."

Sid was the only person who acted unprofessionally. You need to listen to the recording.

"Otherwise the appearance of prejudice and discrimination becomes a potential in perception, and obviously when guns and health services are involved,...."

No illegal discrimination took place.

Walt-in-Durham; October 9, 2013 at 8:30 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Didn't you hear on the audio the guard repeatedly threatening to arrest me? My question is: What For?? I didn't pick a fight with him. This was a pre-arranged ambush."

Prove it was a pre arranged ambush.

And yes you did provoke an assault.; October 9, 2013 at 8:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Correction:

SIDNEY HARR:

"Didn't you hear on the audio the guard repeatedly threatening to arrest me? My question is: What For?? I didn't pick a fight with him. This was a pre-arranged ambush."

Prove it was a pre arranged ambush.

And yes you did provoke a FIGHT.; October 9, 2013 at 9:22 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

It is obvious, from the content of your tape recording, that you did pick a FIGHT with the security guard.

It is also obvious the Professor Coleman DID NOT intervene on your behalf. You tried to involve him in the fight you provoked. You lied.; October 9, 2013 at 9:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Am I correct, Walt, is saying that the only individual who sidney could have gone after, under the "color of state" (or similar phrase), would have been the police officer? Not the guard, right? and certainly nobody in duke adminis?
and I do not mean to imply that sidney could have gone after the officer because there was cause....

I say again that if I am holding a garage sale, open to the public and harr shows up, and I don't like his behavior, I can tell him to leave my property.....and the minute he refuses, he is tresspassing. I have a right to call the police and have him removed.; October 9, 2013 at 9:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Here is something from the appropriately named liestoppers:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/5251148/1/

It seems race baiter al, whom KENHYDERAL says always does the right thing, is now trying to claim he had nothing to do with the Lacrosse case.

Isn't it interesting that Crystal's one time supporters have baied n her.; October 9, 2013 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sharpton ran his mouth on national TV about the LAX false rape case. In fact, even Whoopi got on his ass about his racist judgments of the LAX guys. Just another racist looking-for-a-buck halfwit....; October 9, 2013 at 9:45 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

In case you haven't noticed, your hero race baiter al is claiming he never advocated on Crystal's behalf.; October 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM
kenhyderal said...: But he should have.; October 9, 2013 at 10:23 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 9:26 AM wrote: "Am I correct, Walt, is saying that the only individual who sidney could have gone after, under the "color of state" (or similar phrase), would have been the police officer? Not the guard, right? and certainly nobody in duke adminis? and I do not mean to imply that sidney could have gone after the officer because there was cause...."

Sid really fouled up his case. Title 22 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000a, prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. For whatever reasons, Sid did not believe Duke had discriminated against him based on his race, color, religion, or national origin. Instead he framed the suit as discrimination based on his support for the discredited, disbarred and unethical Nifong. That is not a protected class.

Thus, Sid filed rather vaguely but claiming Section 1983 discrimination. Under federal Section 1983 law, there must be some private person or organization acting "under color of state law." North Carolina is a company police state which means that private companies can send some employees to receive law enforcement training, and those employees will have the power to arrest on company property and adjacent to company property. Thus, a company police officer acts "under the color of law" when he goes about enforcing the law.

When the Police officer came on the scene, Sid had been noticed with trespass. If the officer had arrested him, then "acting under color of law" would have taken place. It might have even taken place earlier. However, Sid did not allege any conduct on the part of the officer or the security guard. He did not even sue them.

Instead he brought suit against Duke University, Brodhead and Levy. Unfortunately for Sid, Section 1983 does not permit liability on the basis of respondeat superior. Monell v. N.Y. City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, ___ S. Ct. ____, ____ L.Ed. ____ (1978). Unfortunately for Sid, Monell is supreme court precedent, it is the law of the land. Sid never argued that the court should overturn Monell so he waived the argument. A more skilled advocate would have made that argument. If anything Sid's first case stands for the proposition that a legal education is worth having if you are going to litigate an issue.

Walt-in-Durham; October 9, 2013 at 10:23 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @8:02 said:You would win your wager because no other poster, except you maybe, would espouse the cause of distorting why corrupt DA NIFONG was disbarred"........
Exactly. For a University to limit the espousing of unpopular ideas is disgraceful. Just as egregious as a University Hospital covering up a medical error. Duke appears to be guilty of both.; October 9, 2013 at 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

The Kennedy Family were not exactly white supremacists. What Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote about race baiter al:

"Al Sharpton has done more damage to the black cause than (segregationist Alabama Gov.) George Wallace. He has suffocated the decent black leaders in New York. His transparent venal blackmail and extortion schemes taint all black leadership."

Link http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2013/10/09/why-do-advertisers-back-racebaiter-al-sharpton-n1720170; October 9, 2013 at 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"But he should have.(race baiter al should have advocated for Crystal)"

So how do you claim that your hero race baiter al always does the right thing.; October 9, 2013 at 10:56 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "For a University to limit the espousing of unpopular ideas is disgraceful."
Pot, meet kettle.; October 9, 2013 at 10:59 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Exactly. For a University to limit the espousing of unpopular ideas is disgraceful. Just as egregious as a University Hospital covering up a medical error. Duke appears to be guilty of both."

You do not get it. The event SIDNEY attended was not a venue for anyone to push his/her personal agenda. He disrupted the event, even though you and SIDNEY deny this.

What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that Yeshiva University has an obligation to allow a neo nazi to come on campus and advocate resumption of the holocaust.

And you omit that SIDNEY's advocacy for corrupt DA NIFONG is not just unpopular. It is an advocacy for injustice, the jailing of innocent men who were falsely accused of rape, who were prosecuted for the purpose of corrupt DA NIFONG enhancing his retirement benefits.

Before you say Duke University Hospital is guilty of a covering up a medical error, establish that there was a medical error in the first place. When you call SIDNEY a distinguished physician, you show you can not recognize a medical error when you see one.

For that matter, establish that Crystal was raped. Saying you believe a non credible accuser who is supported by a non existent witness is far from proof.; October 9, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Walt, that's interesting and helpful. I read the Duke lengthy response and it noted the limitation on suit against Brodhead, etc..on the grounds you mentioned. Very informative. Harr screwed the pooch all the way around. Even if he DID have a basis for a claim, he screwed it. But, it sure looks like he had no grounds to sue, period, for AMY reason.; October 9, 2013 at 12:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid Harr: The Rectal Flyer; October 9, 2013 at 1:35 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous wrote: "The Kennedy Family were not exactly white supremacists" But they were not exactly strong advocates for Civil Rights either; especially in the late 50's and early 60's Their "Johnny come lately" support was politically motivated,; October 9, 2013 at 3:06 PM
kenhyderal said...: Lance said: "Pot, meet kettle" .... Huh ? You'll have to explain that one to me. If I'm the kettle who is the pot; October 9, 2013 at 3:09 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal said...

' Lance said: "Pot, meet kettle" .... Huh ? You'll have to explain that one to me. If I'm the kettle who is the pot '

Sorry, Kenny: you're the pot. Read the link.; October 9, 2013 at 3:21 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 11:05 said: "What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that Yeshiva University has an obligation to allow a neo nazi to come on campus and advocate resumption of the holocaust"....... Disgusting hyperbole. Comparing Dr. Harr's advocacy to restore Mike Nifong's law licence to starting a holocaust is an offence to all Jewish People. I don't expect Duke or Yeshiva to tolerate hate speech on their campuses but suppressing unpopular opinion is a black mark against any University; October 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: Thanks Walt I missed clicking on "kettle". I include any and all Universities in my condemnation of suppressing free speech.; October 9, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Once again, the troll tries to hide from the point. This event was a public event on private property. It was a specific program, not a free-for-all stump speech public square-open mike event, troll. Duke has the RIGHT, as you have been told repeatedly, to tell Harr to leave as it did. And when he did not leave, he was tresspassing and breaking the law. Duke has the RIGHT, troll! Whether you like it is not even remotely relevant.
Harr was not merely handing out business cards. He was soliciting people to his web site and button-holing for his usual crusade. He was violating Duke's no-solicitation policy. Any asshat who has EVER been close to a university, as in attending medical school, knows that the university has no-solicitation policies. The second Harr was told to leave, he had no choice but to leave. He is damned lucky he did not get arrested.
The letter from Duke clearly and directly stated why he was told to leave.
As usual, you and the other black racist apologists who always look for a reason to blame white people for every problem YOU create in your OWN lives, are trying to make poor harr the victim. bull shit.; October 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM
A Lawyer said...: I asked the following question on October 7 at 10:31 A.M., but Dr. Harr and his supporters must have missed it, so I will repeat it:

Since the subject of this thread is supposed to be Duke's motion to dismiss and Dr. Harr's response, I wonder if Dr. Harr has any response to my post of October 5 at 4:15 PM, which lays out why his legal arguments are baseless.; October 9, 2013 at 4:09 PM
Break the Conspiracy said...: A Lawyer:

I will respond on behalf of Sidney. As you can imagine, he is quite busy with the opening salvos in this legal war. The other defendants should be making their filings shortly.

In addition, with new counsel, Sidney is undoubtedly busy helping to plan Crystal's defense. Unfortunately, he remains baffled by this lesser contained charges concept.

In his filings, I do not believe Sidney made any "legal arguments."

I summarize his case:

1. Duke humiliated him because he supports Nifong.
2. Justice requires that Duke compensate him.
3. The court dismissed the first lawsuit because the law is unjust.
4. He must have the opportunity to convince a jury to disregard the law.
5. Your examples (endless litigation; Gitmo lawsuit) are irrelevant because he seeks justice and others seek to deny it.

In general, Sidney believes that you, Walt and other lawyers are not able to think broadly enough, focusing on "legalese jumbo-jumbo" instead of seeking justice.

Legal precedent has no place in the court room. An analysis of constitutional provisions, statutes and regulations, and case law serves only to pervert justice. Sidney believes that the justice system would be fairer and more efficient if he and others like himcan decide what claims have merit and if there was little consistency in how courts reach verdicts.

As a result, Sidney, despite no legal training, would be a far more effective advocate for Crystal. Legal knowledge is unimportant. Crystal needs an advocate with passion. She would be well served by the skills of persuasion Sidney consistently demonstrates on this blog.

I hope this has been helpful.; October 9, 2013 at 4:41 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "This event was a public event on private property:... Yeah, Unlike a public University Duke is a private one and they have the legal right to order people off their property. But, do the have the moral right to do so for the reason they don't like the views of someone? Then, rather then admit to their real reason, hide behind an anti-solicitation policy that was never intended to be used in such a way to deny free expression. Once again as usual Duke disgraces itself.; October 9, 2013 at 4:49 PM
A Lawyer said...: Break the Conspiracy: that is a wonderful send-up of Dr. Harr's kind of thinking, but sadly, he won't get the joke.; October 9, 2013 at 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Disgusting hyperbole. Comparing Dr. Harr's advocacy to restore Mike Nifong's law licence to starting a holocaust is an offence to all Jewish People."

No it is not. SIDNEY's advocacy for a thoroughly corrupt public official just for his own well benefit, is rather hateful in itself, based on SIDNEY's promulgation of the lie that Crystal was raped, based on the lie that the Lacrosse players are guilty, based on the lie that corrupt DA NIFONG was victimized by a non existent carpetbagger jihad.

"I don't expect Duke or Yeshiva to tolerate hate speech on their campuses but suppressing unpopular opinion is a black mark against any University".

You expect Duke to give SIDNEY a venue to push his hate motivated campaign.

And you sure do not like being confronted by the nature of what you support, namely the belief that innocent men should be convicted of raping false accuser Crystal Mangum. advocacy; October 9, 2013 at 5:34 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Yeah, Unlike a public University Duke is a private one and they have the legal right to order people off their property. But, do the have the moral right to do so for the reason they don't like the views of someone?"

Duke does have the right to prevent SIDNEY from trying to turn an event like thr Judge Breyer event into a venue to push his own advocacy for anything, even if it were not as heinous as his advocacy for a corrupt prosecutor who tried to wrongfully convict innocent men.

"Then, rather then admit to their real reason, hide behind an anti-solicitation policy that was never intended to be used in such a way to deny free expression. Once again as usual Duke disgraces itself."

No, once again you show how biased and stupid you are. SIDNEY tried to violate Duke's policy on solicitation. That policy was intended for, among other things, to prevent people like SIDNEY from disrupting University events to push his own agenda.

Incidentally, that was a tactic of the Nazis.; October 9, 2013 at 5:43 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Who conferred on you or SIDNEY the authority to decide why Duke has a policy on solicitation or what is a violation of that policy.

What SIDNEY tried to do was force Duke to support SIDNEY's agenda. Again, one thing the Nazis tried to do in Germany is force support of things on theiragenda, like the holocaust.; October 9, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous wrote: "The Kennedy Family were not exactly white supremacists" But they were not exactly strong advocates for Civil Rights either; especially in the late 50's and early 60's Their "Johnny come lately" support was politically motivated,"

You are trying to duck the issue that your hero race baiter al bailed on Crystal.

Please explain how race baiter al is doing the right thing by bailing on Crystal. How did he do the right thing by advocating for false accuser Crystal Mangum? How did he do the right thing by lying about his advocacy of Crystal?

You don't want to face those issues, do you.; October 9, 2013 at 5:51 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

You also do not want to face up to the fact that race baiter al will not involve himself in anything he can not use to stir up black on white racism.; October 9, 2013 at 5:52 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Any reasonable person can see that this is simply a feeble excuse for what was done to Dr.Harr; not for soliciting but because of his reputation for promoting ideas inimical to their agenda. I wager that no poster, here, other then Dr.Harr, would be tossed off Duke or any other University Campus for the same actions

I've posted links to Duke's solicitation policy in the past. Sid's handing out business cards is considered solicitation as Duke defines it.

Kenhyderal -- I currently work for a Healthcare IT consulting firm. I'll wager you that if I stand outside of the Mary Duke Biddle Trent Semans Center for Health Education handing out business cards (which reference both my firm and their website), I would be asked to desist for precisely the same reason that Sid was.
Care to take that wager?; October 9, 2013 at 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr,

I'm a bit confused about another issue posed by your recent case.

What led you to suddenly file this latest case as you did? It was filed rather suddenly it seems. What is your cause for action and what do you hope to achieve with this case? That is still not clear.

Do you still maintain your communication with the duke lawyer mentioned in this case, or did you lose the ability to do so with the occurance of this case?; October 9, 2013 at 7:15 PM
kenhyderal said...: Lance said: "Care to take that wager"........... No, because the circumstances there don't seem to be parallel. I'm uncertain what would be the purpose of handing out your firms cards there. I assume you have a commercial interest in promoting your IT Consulting Firm but would you be targeting the same clients using that Center? Unlike Dr. Harr, you would not be espousing ideas that the Center for Health Education would find, not to their liking. Expand on your example if you can.; October 9, 2013 at 8:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "You also do not want to face up to the fact that race baiter al will not involve himself in anything he can not use to stir up black on white racism"..... Huh? What about the MSNBC show Politics Nation. Are you also accusing Microsft and General Electric of promoting racial strife? Get real.; October 9, 2013 at 9:02 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 652 Newer› Newest»

Saturday, October 5, 2013

When Justice and the Law collide: Opening salvos in a legal war

652 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me