justice4nifong: Libel lawsuit: Harr v. WRAL-5 .. Plaintiff responds

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Libel lawsuit: Harr v. WRAL-5 .. Plaintiff responds

743 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 743 of 743

Anonymous said...: So Kenny, that means Mark Simeon knows who Kilgo is - have you reached out to him to find out who Kilgo is, and explain that it's in everyone's interest to find Kilgo since he can prove Crystal was raped? If all he did was make a donation, it's not privileged.

Or, as is your tendency, are you all talk and no action?; May 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM
Sconnosciuto said...: Allo, Kenhyderal,
Purtroppo non vedrai piu questo grosso Kilgo.; May 5, 2017 at 9:35 PM
kenhyderal said...: No he doesn't. Matt Murchison served as a go between. He received the money made out to him in a Western Union, following my instructions to Kilgo. He cashed the Western Union by providing Western Union with a Money Transfer Control Number that Kilgo had e-mailed to me. I have that number which was in in the e-mail I sent to Matt, who, unlike me, he had saved it. I, unfortunately, deleted the e-mails I received from Kilgo. After Kilgo disappeared and changed his e-mail account I tried to trace that Western Union but the number is longer is traceable I also have the money transfer control Number of the Western Union made out to Simeon which is also no longer traceable. Simeon has provided me and Crystal with a copy of his trust cheque which I hesitate to post because being able quote the amount is the method I use to distinguish the real Kilgo from the mischief making imposters; May 5, 2017 at 9:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"No he doesn't. Matt Murchison served as a go between. He received the money made out to him in a Western Union, following my instructions to Kilgo. He cashed the Western Union by providing Western Union with a Money Transfer Control Number that Kilgo had e-mailed to me. I have that number which was in in the e-mail I sent to Matt, who, unlike me, he had saved it. I, unfortunately, deleted the e-mails I received from Kilgo. After Kilgo disappeared and changed his e-mail account I tried to trace that Western Union but the number is longer is traceable I also have the money transfer control Number of the Western Union made out to Simeon which is also no longer traceable. Simeon has provided me and Crystal with a copy of his trust cheque which I hesitate to post because being able quote the amount is the method I use to distinguish the real Kilgo from the mischief making imposters"

All of which means you have no documentation that kilgo told you anything about a lacrosse player who witnessed Crystal being raped, which, in turn, suggess rather strongly you fabricated that story.; May 6, 2017 at 3:13 AM
Anonymous said...: dr harr you need to stop g and his friends in the evil duke troll gang from their cyberbullying against kenhyderal who finds that every time he makes a post in support of his friend Crystal he becomes a target of their constant trolling and hate crimes to the point that i think there is a good chance that kenhyderal will stop posting here rather than have to deal with the evil duke trolls.; May 6, 2017 at 5:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 240 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 7 weeks and 3 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks. It has been 9 days since you said that "it will be a matter of days, or a few weeks at the most" before Mangum is released from state custody.

It has been 52 days since the Ides of March 2017, 81 days since February 14, 2017, 126 days since the end of 2016, 309 days since the end of June 2016, 377 days since April 24, 2016, 417 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,260 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,611 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,219 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 6, 2017 at 5:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney or Kenny or both again posting anonymously to created the illusion they have support.; May 6, 2017 at 6:10 AM
Anonymous said...: anonymous May 6, 2017 at 5:03 AM:

"i(sic) think there is a good chance that kenhyderal will stop posting here rather than have to deal with the evil duke trolls."

If that happenes, it will be the first time Kenny ever really did anything to benefit Crystal.; May 6, 2017 at 6:13 AM
guiowen said...: Oh, great!
The Crybully's back again!; May 6, 2017 at 7:26 AM
guiowen said...: Just watch: Crybully's going to make Kenhyderal sigh!; May 6, 2017 at 7:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Fy g you are the worst of the evil duke trolls and do not think twice about cyberbullying me and committing hate crimes and then trying to act witty by singing your little dipshitty song about ken edwards and then copying my posts and trolling me again all because you are an evil duke troll who can not control his evilness and his urge to commit hate crimes

blah

blah

blah; May 6, 2017 at 8:13 AM
guiowen said...: But Crybully Tinfoil,
You promised two days ago that you wouldn't reply to my postings again! Can't you keep your word?; May 6, 2017 at 8:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 6, 2017 at 8:13 AM:

Why is it a hate crime to point out that Kenhyderal may have fabricated his story of kilgo and the Lacrosse player? Is it because Kenhyderal hates being exposed as a phony?; May 6, 2017 at 8:47 AM
Anonymous said...: there you go again g being a cyberbully and trolling me like the evil duke troll that you are and conviently forgetting that what i said is that it was the last time that i would tell you to stop trolling me and that i did not tell you today to stop trolling me but what I said is that you are an evil duke troll and a cyberbully and that you commit hate crimes against me and kenhyderal when we post on dr harr's blog and that dr harr should ban you and the other evil duke trolls; May 6, 2017 at 8:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous May 6, 2017 at 8:55 AM:

"you commit hate crimes against me and kenhyderal when we post on dr harr's blog and that dr harr should ban you and the other evil duke trolls"

you should have posted "dr harr should ban you and the other evil duke trolls" because de. harr and kenhyderal are afraid of the truth. People who fear the truth do so because they don't tell the truth.; May 6, 2017 at 9:09 AM
guiowen said...: CryBully cry!
You make Ken Edwards sigh:
He's old enough to know better.
So CryBully cry!; May 6, 2017 at 9:26 AM
Anonymous said...: dr harr g is not only trolling me and bullying me and committing hate crimes but he is also stalking me and i am asking you to ban him from your blog until he agrees to stop acting like the evil duke troll that he is when he commits these hate crimes and refuses to leave me alone because he is having so much fun being a troll; May 6, 2017 at 9:33 AM
guiowen said...: CryBully cry!; May 6, 2017 at 9:44 AM
Anonymous said...: dr harr have you seen enough now to ban g from your blog because he constantly trolls me and cyberbullies me and acts like an evil duke troll and stalker and commits hate crimes against me and kenhyderal by trolling and cyberbullying us over and over and seems to be having fun by trying to be witty when all he is is an evil duke troll and stalker?; May 6, 2017 at 9:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Anonymous May 6, 2017 at 9:57 AM

Many of those recent quotes did not come from g.; May 6, 2017 at 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

You need to clean up the comments. Your blog is infested with trolls (generally trolls trolling other trolls). A summary of today's posts follows:

3:13AM Response to Kenny's trolling.
5:03AM Troll trolling guiowen.
5:59AM Abe's countdown (which is Abe trolling Sidney's trolling of promises)
6:10AM Troll trolling troll.
6:13AM Response to troll.
7:26AM Guiowen trolling troll.
7:27AM Guiowen trolling troll.
8:13AM Troll trolling guiowen.
8:38AM Guiowen trolling troll.
8:47AM Response to troll.
8:55AM Troll trolling guiowen.
9:09AM Troll trolling troll.
9:26AM Guiowen trolling troll.
9:33AM Troll trolling guiowen.
9:44AM Guiowen trolling troll.
9:57AM Troll trolling guiowen.
10:13AM Response to troll.; May 6, 2017 at 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: You forgot

11:30AM Troll trolling Dr. Harr; May 6, 2017 at 11:55 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous' post @ 3:13 was a response to my post yesterday at 9:50 PM which, in turn, was a response to a question that was asked of me by Anonymous at 4:13 PM yesterday. Labelling me as a troll in this exchange is unjustified. I did not set this off. Aside from many examples of actual trolling here , many throw around the epithet troll at anyone they who expresses views they disagree with. I suppose now, though, it's better then what I used to frequently get here like Nazi or racist.; May 6, 2017 at 1:21 PM
Anonymous said...: More from Kenny the troll.; May 6, 2017 at 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, it is obvious to even a casual observer here that you are nothing but a troll.; May 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, why do you troll so much?; May 6, 2017 at 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny is a troll.; May 6, 2017 at 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal = troll; May 6, 2017 at 4:03 PM
Anonymous said...: When do you plan to stop trolling, Kenny?; May 6, 2017 at 4:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, your trolling is getting tiresome.; May 6, 2017 at 6:14 PM
JSwift said...: Kenny whines:Anonymous' post @ 3:13 was a response to my post yesterday at 9:50 PM which, in turn, was a response to a question that was asked of me by Anonymous at 4:13 PM yesterday. Labelling me as a troll in this exchange is unjustified. I did not set this off.

Kenny, we all know that your 9:50 PM post was a response to a question posed to you. We all know that you "did not not set off" the exchange. We also know that your 9:50 PM post was so outrageous a response to a question that it was obvious you were trolling.

You quickly rejected my May 4 3:39 PM post in which I described Kilo's tragic experiment with lacrosse sticks despite the fact that I followed all of your rules. I admit that I was trolling you in the that post.

Consider:

1. We both post under pseudonyms (kenhyderal and jswift).
2. We both have self-identified (Kenneth D. Edwards, a Canadian living in Dubai, and John D. Smith, an American living in NYC).
3. We both have provided no proof to our identities.
4. We both claim to have sources who posted under pseudonyms (Kilgo and Newport).
5. We both claim that our sources made outrageous allegations (mystery rapists and lacrosse stick experiments).
6. We both provided no proof for those allegations.
7. We both constructed narratives that cannot be disproven with absolute certainty (mystery rapists and lacrosse stick experiments).
8. We both have provided no proof that our pseudonymous sources really exist (your 9:50 PM post was a ridiculous narrative; you rejected my post without even asking for any support).
9. We both responded to questions from other posters.
10. In sum, we both engaged in trolling other posters (you troll virtually everyone, particularly Sidney, and I trolled you).

Kenny, no one said that you were the only troll on this blog. As the 11:30 AM post suggests, the blog is infested with trolls. There are few posters who are always or generally serious (e.g., Walt and A Lawyer come the closest).

Sidney has fostered an environment that is not conducive to a serious discussion. Serious posters have either left the blog due primarily to Sidney's unwillingness to have an honest discussion (e.g., Michael) or have replaced meaningful posts with trolling (e.g., guiowen). People label you a troll not because you express opinions with which they disagree, but the way in which you do so, expressing preposterous "opinions" that you know no one believes, relying on intellectually dishonest arguments, making ad hominem attacks and oozing smugness.

If you don't want people to call you a troll, I suggest you stop acting like one.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 6, 2017 at 6:46 PM
Anonymous said...: There is a clear consensus that Kenny is a troll.; May 6, 2017 at 8:02 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ JSwift: I suppose, those who express opinions that you consider "outrageous" or "preposterous" are, in your mind, automatically trolls. That's rather sanctimonious. You often accuse me of using as hominem attacks when it should be clear, even to you, that I am the greater victim of them by many fold. Can you cite any examples of where I have made an unwarranted ad hominem attack on you. And where to you get that I troll Dr. Harr. Let's ask his opinion on that unsubstantiated whopper; May 6, 2017 at 9:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 239 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 7 weeks and 4 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks. It has been 10 days since you said that "it will be a matter of days, or a few weeks at the most" before Mangum is released from state custody.

It has been 53 days since the Ides of March 2017, 82 days since February 14, 2017, 127 days since the end of 2016, 310 days since the end of June 2016, 378 days since April 24, 2016, 418 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,261 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,612 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,218 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 7, 2017 at 4:27 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

You troll Sidney in the same way that Break trolled him. You pretend to be supportive of his horrendously ineffective actions, applauding everything he does, rather than offering constructive advice.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 7, 2017 at 4:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

I apologize for my extended absence from this site, but I have been extremely busy, among other things trying to get a new sharlog posted. If all goes well, it should be uploaded by the middle of this week.

In addition, I have been heavily involved in personal and health issues... nothing serious, thank goodness. More like routine maintenance. (Possibly this is TMI.)

Anyway, I still remain positive that a ruling on the motions filed by Ms. Mangum will be successful, with an anticipation of a verdict soon.

As you were.; May 7, 2017 at 6:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: JSwift said...
Kenny whines:Anonymous' post @ 3:13 was a response to my post yesterday at 9:50 PM which, in turn, was a response to a question that was asked of me by Anonymous at 4:13 PM yesterday. Labelling me as a troll in this exchange is unjustified. I did not set this off.

Kenny, we all know that your 9:50 PM post was a response to a question posed to you. We all know that you "did not not set off" the exchange. We also know that your 9:50 PM post was so outrageous a response to a question that it was obvious you were trolling.

You quickly rejected my May 4 3:39 PM post in which I described Kilo's tragic experiment with lacrosse sticks despite the fact that I followed all of your rules. I admit that I was trolling you in the that post.

Consider:

1. We both post under pseudonyms (kenhyderal and jswift).
2. We both have self-identified (Kenneth D. Edwards, a Canadian living in Dubai, and John D. Smith, an American living in NYC).
3. We both have provided no proof to our identities.
4. We both claim to have sources who posted under pseudonyms (Kilgo and Newport).
5. We both claim that our sources made outrageous allegations (mystery rapists and lacrosse stick experiments).
6. We both provided no proof for those allegations.
7. We both constructed narratives that cannot be disproven with absolute certainty (mystery rapists and lacrosse stick experiments).
8. We both have provided no proof that our pseudonymous sources really exist (your 9:50 PM post was a ridiculous narrative; you rejected my post without even asking for any support).
9. We both responded to questions from other posters.
10. In sum, we both engaged in trolling other posters (you troll virtually everyone, particularly Sidney, and I trolled you).

Kenny, no one said that you were the only troll on this blog. As the 11:30 AM post suggests, the blog is infested with trolls. There are few posters who are always or generally serious (e.g., Walt and A Lawyer come the closest).

Sidney has fostered an environment that is not conducive to a serious discussion. Serious posters have either left the blog due primarily to Sidney's unwillingness to have an honest discussion (e.g., Michael) or have replaced meaningful posts with trolling (e.g., guiowen). People label you a troll not because you express opinions with which they disagree, but the way in which you do so, expressing preposterous "opinions" that you know no one believes, relying on intellectually dishonest arguments, making ad hominem attacks and oozing smugness.

If you don't want people to call you a troll, I suggest you stop acting like one.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Hey, JSwift.

How do you have the gall to say that I am unwilling to have a serious conversations? Almost without exception my comments are sincere, heart-felt, and supported by facts. I don't understand the basis for the accusation. Give me an example or reference to help provide some elucidation.; May 7, 2017 at 6:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
dr harr have you seen enough now to ban g from your blog because he constantly trolls me and cyberbullies me and acts like an evil duke troll and stalker and commits hate crimes against me and kenhyderal by trolling and cyberbullying us over and over and seems to be having fun by trying to be witty when all he is is an evil duke troll and stalker?

Anonymous, trolling is not a banishmentable offense on this site... although it is not encouraged. Relish your anonymity and ignore the troll speech.; May 7, 2017 at 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, JSwift.

How do you have the gall to say that I am unwilling to have a serious conversations?"

Not J Swift.

Attempts to convince the public that the Lacrosse defendants raped Crystal are not serious conversation but attempts at defamation.

"Almost without exception my comments are sincere, heart-felt, and supported by facts."

Your comments are heartfelt attempts to defame the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, and they are not supported by any facts. You have presented zero factual evidence to support the allegations you make.

"I don't understand the basis for the accusation."

That is because you are in denial.

"Give me an example or reference to help provide some elucidation."

Your persistent comments that Crystal was the "victim/accuser" in the Duke Lacrosse Case. She was the victimizer/false accuser in the DUKE RAPE HOAX.; May 7, 2017 at 9:23 AM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: "You pretend to be supportive of his horrendously ineffective actions, applauding everything he does, rather than offering constructive advice"....................................... And what would be my motive for such a pretence?; May 7, 2017 at 9:31 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny asks: And what would be my motive for such a presence?

The same as Break's: to make fun of Sidney by demonstrating that he mindlessly endorses anyone who appears to agree with him irrespective of the actual weakness or dishonesty of the arguments used to support his conclusions.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 7, 2017 at 9:37 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

You asked for some examples of when you were unwilling or unable to engage in honest conversation. Without providing examples of specific posts, I will provide some descriptive examples. I will provide them one at a time.

In general, you do not (or are incapable) of grasping arguments and evidence made by people who disagree with you. You generally state your opinion and cite whatever facts may support that opinion. You ignore the arguments and facts raised and refuse to change your argument in light of facts that contradict it.

The first example is your refusal to analyze Mangum's April 6, 2006, written statement in connection with her false rape accusation in the lacrosse case.

I posted links to it on several occasions. You promised to review it and respond at your earliest convenience. You failed to do so. A couple of posters and I reminded you several dozen times of your promise to respond . You ignored all of the reminders until you finally stated that you were no longer interested in the subject.

I asked you how the failure to find DNA that matched any of the defendants (or any of the players for that matter) was not exculpatory in light of the specific allegations Magnum made in that statement. The failure to find DNA that matched the defendants proved with virtual certainty that Mangum's specific allegations were false.

How is proof that Mangum's specific allegations were false not exculpatory? Given that these specific accusations were proven false with virtual certainty, how can you continue to claim that Mangum's accusations were not proven false?

I will provide other examples when you respond to this example.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 7, 2017 at 1:47 PM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

The link to the written statement is provided below.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/06/crystal-gail-mangum-april-6-2006.html; May 7, 2017 at 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

You have 238 days left to exonerate and free Mangum in 2017. It has been 7 weeks and 5 days since you predicted that Mangum would be released within a matter of weeks. It has been 11 days since you said that "it will be a matter of days, or a few weeks at the most" before Mangum is released from state custody.

It has been 54 days since the Ides of March 2017, 83 days since February 14, 2017, 128 days since the end of 2016, 311 days since the end of June 2016, 379 days since April 24, 2016, 419 days since the Ides of March 2016, 1,262 days since Mangum was convicted of murdering Reginald Daye and 3,613 days since Mike Nifong was disbarred. Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in 3,217 days.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 8, 2017 at 3:57 AM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: "Kenny asks: And what would be my motive for such a presence?
The same as Break's: to make fun of Sidney by demonstrating that he mindlessly endorses anyone who appears to agree with him irrespective of the actual weakness or dishonesty of the arguments used to support his conclusions....................................Calling into question the motivation of those you disagree with is not honest debate. Subscribing to me a motive of wanting, like Break, to try and mock Dr. Harr is ridiculous. Remember I am a friend of Crystal. When I first came upon this blog, by chance, both you and Kilgo were already here each on the opposite side. I was distressed by the unfair characterization of Crystal, held by most here, and I suspected, with good reason many posters on this blog, like on the Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers Blog, seemed to be part of a concerted attempt to discredit Crystal. Something I, as a friend, felt an obligation to counter. I found the host Dr. Harr, someone I came to admire for his ireless efforts to seek justice, as someone who could help her get justice for her more effectively then I could. This is not a game for me. I do not troll, I do not mock, I only seek to give those who only have had a distorted view of Crystal, garnered from the Duke Lacrosse defender's propaganda, the biased media and the powers that be in North Carolina, a view of Crystal from someone who knows her.; May 8, 2017 at 9:29 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny,

While you claim to be "a friend of Crystal", you do not act like one. You make attempts on this blog to salvage her reputation, but you do absolutely nothing to help her resolve her current predicament.

While Sidney may make "tireless efforts to seek justice" for Crystal, you cannot reasonably claim that he is effective in those "tireless efforts." His advice to Crystal has been absolutely abysmal.

He convinced her to fire her attorneys and represent herself against first degree murder charges, and you said nothing. He wasted his time on frivolous lawsuits for himself (Harr I, Harr II, Harr III, Harr v Freeman, Harr v WRAL, Harr v Fix the Court), and you said nothing. He convinced Crystal to discard Petersen's appeal on legal rulings from her trial and replace it with his draft, which focused on issues not able to be appealed, and you said nothing.

Sidney demonstrates an utter lack of legal knowledge and a complete refusal to learn. Sidney rejects advice from those who disagree with him (apparently fearing they are conspiring against him). As a self-proclaimed friend of Crystal and a world-class Google search artist, you have been uniquely positioned to offer advice that Sidney may have accepted. You were uniquely positioned to help Sidney direct his "tireless efforts" into more effective action that might have benefitted Crystal. You said nothing.

That track record of doing and saying nothing as Sidney flails away in the legal system is why I concluded that you were not a real friend of Crystal, but just a troll. What motivates trolls? They are playing a game.

You claim to provide "a view of Crystal from someone who knows her." A couple of questions: When did you meet Crystal in Bremerton? How much time have you spent with her in person since then?

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 8, 2017 at 11:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

".Calling into question the motivation of those you disagree with is not honest debate."

But calling innocent men guilty in the face of zero evidence is? Oh come now.

"Subscribing to me a motive of wanting, like Break, to try and mock Dr. Harr is ridiculous. Remember I am a friend of Crystal. When I first came upon this blog, by chance, both you and Kilgo were already here each on the opposite side. I was distressed by the unfair characterization of Crystal, held by most here, and I suspected, with good reason many posters on this blog, like on the Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers Blog, seemed to be part of a concerted attempt to discredit Crystal."

There was no concerted effort to discredit Crystal. Crystal discredited herself by falsely accusing innocent men of raping her.

Something I, as a friend, felt an obligation to counter."

No, it was a lie which you as a guilt presuming racist wishful thinker tried to pass off as truth.

"I found the host Dr. Harr, someone I came to admire for his ireless(sic) efforts to seek justice, as someone who could help her get justice for her more effectively then I could."

Proclaiming innocent men guilty of a crime which never happened is tirelessly wotking for Justice? Piltdown man has more credibility than does this statement.

"This is not a game for me. I do not troll, I do not mock, I only seek to give those who only have had a distorted view of Crystal, garnered from the Duke Lacrosse defender's propaganda,"

There was no propaganda from those who defended the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, just incontrovertible proof that Crystal had falsely accused them.

"the biased media and the powers that be in North Carolina, a view of Crystal from someone who knows her."

Kenny gets two things wrong here, that the media was biased against Crystal and that he really knows her. She is a murderess/false accuser, both of which you are in denial of.; May 8, 2017 at 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: The posts from the last few days have gotten me to thinking.

Everyone on this site is a troll. We just have different styles and methods of trolling. There has not been a new fact or idea, different argument, serious discussion, honest debate or interesting point brought up on this godforsaken shloghole for years.

As intelligent and well informed as Walt and A Lawyer are, they are trolling Sid, too, in their own ways. Both of them are smart enough to know what they are dealing with and what really animates Sid. Yet they persist in engaging.

I am out of here. I have better and higher uses of my time. The lacrosse case is over. The Mangum case is over. There is nothing left to discuss or debate about either one. All that is left is to point and laugh. I am not going to do that anymore. I am not going to waste one further second on things that don't matter and people who cannot be faulted for their thoughts, positions and actions.

Anyone who wants to take over the countdown is free to do so. I don't care one way or the other.

My best to all.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 8, 2017 at 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Abe Froman, I can see where you are coming from. Very similar to KC Johnson making the decision to shut down his blog of the Lacrosse case. For myself this is the last blog that is actively discussing the Lacrosse case and Mangum. Kenhyderal is a troll, as he really does nothing to help Mangum or add anything to the Lacrosse case. Now Sidney is different in that he is attempting to get Mangum released and she has accepted his help. For a period of time, I thought Sidney might have a chance(new trial for Mangum). But, at this point he has wandered far off the path of any success.

My wife has asked me multiple times why I follow this blog and I really do not have an answer other than I have followed the Lacrosse case for years while it played out and this is the last ending that has not completed. Basically, when Sidney gives up there will be nothing to follow. There were many bad people trying to put three men in jail no matter what the evidence showed and to this day they need to be confronted.

In terms of your count down, it really can be compressed to:

"Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison on February 28, 2026."; May 8, 2017 at 7:01 PM
kenhyderal said...: Abe said: "Anyone who wants to take over the countdown is free to do so. I don't care one way or the other"............................. Your countdown was inconsequential and served no purpose. It was simply another mean-spirited way to try and embarrass Dr. Harr. Dr. Harr being a man of forbearance took no offense and even turned the tables on you by expressing thanks for your efforts, choosing to disregard your obvious attempts at mockery. "Toward the scorners He is scornful,
but to the humble he gives favor" Proverbs 3:34; May 8, 2017 at 9:10 PM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: "When did you meet Crystal in Bremerton? How much time have you spent with her in person since then?' In 1999. We have had no face to face contact since then. We reconnected in April 2007 and since then we have kept in contact by e-mail and when she was incarcerated by post and also through Dr. Harr and other friends and supporters; May 8, 2017 at 9:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Your countdown was inconsequential and served no purpose. It was simply another mean-spirited way to try and embarrass Dr. Harr."

One does not have to try to embarrass Sidney. He does a pretty good job of embarrassing himself via his delusional megalomania, by his ridiculous frivolous lawsuits

"Dr. Harr being a man of forbearance took no offense and even turned the tables on you by expressing thanks for your efforts, choosing to disregard your obvious attempts at mockery."

Sidney is nothing more than an attention craving deluded megalomaniac, and a rather vicious one considering his efforts to paint innocent men guilty of a crime which never happened, considering his delusional beliefs that there are powers that be and a carpet bagger jihad out to get him.

"Toward the scorners He is scornful, but to the humble he gives favor" Proverbs 3:34"

You think Sidney is not a scorner considering his disregard for the innocence of the falsely accused Lacrosse players?

Considering all the failures in his life, wasting his medical education and his attempts to bring others down because they are more accomplished and better off than he is, it should be obvious even to someone even like you that Sidney does not enjoy the favor of the Almighty.; May 9, 2017 at 3:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Fro-man, Fro-man, Fro-man

Fro-man, Fro-man, Fro-man

Fro-man, Fro-man, Fro-man; May 9, 2017 at 3:17 AM
Walt said...: Of course, I cannot speak for A Lawyer, but for myself I follow this blog and comment to make sure that no one stumbles by here and is mis-informed about the innocence of the three lacrosse players.

I have in the past pointed out the fallacy of several of Sid's positions on different matters simply because: (1) he is uninformed and I would like that the few readers here be better informed, and (2) Sid is often very one-sided in his view of an issue.

That said, the lacrosse case is over and only a very few misguided people hatefully spread lies about the innocent men. That is shameful conduct.

Crystal's case is nearly over. The U.S.D.Ct. will shortly deny her Writ and the case will then be finally over and done with. Crystal will be released on February 28, 2026, hopefully rehabilitated by her stay with the North Carolina Department of Corrections.

Walt-in-Durham; May 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Well, it will be over and done after Sid appeals it to the 4th Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court, but yes, for all intents and purposes it is over.

Sid's defamation lawsuits will end similarly.; May 9, 2017 at 11:25 AM
A Lawyer said...: Like Walt, I post here for the benefit of anyone who stumbles by. My concern is not only for the three innocent Lacrosse players, but for anyone who might be misled by any of Dr. Harr's lawsuits (his three suits against Duke, his suit against D.A. Freeman, his two current libel suits, the current habeas corpus case on behalf of Mangum). Every lawsuit filed by Dr. Harr has already been dismissed, or inevitably will be dismissed. All the dismissals will be affirmed on appeal.; May 9, 2017 at 11:46 AM
kenhyderal said...: Like Walt I post here for the benefit of anyone who stumbles by. My concern is not only for Crystal Mangum but for anyone who might be misled by any of The Duke Lacrosse Defenders posting here and their erroneous characterizations of her.; May 9, 2017 at 9:08 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
We already know what a liar you are. Talk about "erroneous characterizations".; May 9, 2017 at 10:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Like Walt I post here for the benefit of anyone who stumbles by. My concern is not only for Crystal Mangum but for anyone who might be misled by any of The Duke Lacrosse Defenders posting here and their erroneous characterizations of her."

No one is posting here in an attempt to misrepresent Crystal, except Kenny and Sidney. Crystal is a murderess and a false accuser.; May 10, 2017 at 2:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Abe.; May 10, 2017 at 3:24 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
Like Walt, I post here for the benefit of anyone who stumbles by. My concern is not only for the three innocent Lacrosse players, but for anyone who might be misled by any of Dr. Harr's lawsuits (his three suits against Duke, his suit against D.A. Freeman, his two current libel suits, the current habeas corpus case on behalf of Mangum). Every lawsuit filed by Dr. Harr has already been dismissed, or inevitably will be dismissed. All the dismissals will be affirmed on appeal.

Hmmm. So, A Lawyer, you believe that Gabe Roth's article was accurate when it claimed that I accosted Justice Breyer at the event at Duke University? And ergo, my lawsuit against Fix-the-Court and Roth will be dismissed?

Is it also your position that I am a "Durham man" as WRAL-5 News stated? (Keep in mind that I was not born in Durham, never resided in Durham, and never proclaimed Durham as my home.) Is it also your position that my 2010 lawsuit was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case?

The libel suits are awaiting action. Although the Federal case against Roth and Fix-the-Court was filed on January 3, 2017, the defendants have yet to file a Response.; May 11, 2017 at 5:10 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Of course, I cannot speak for A Lawyer, but for myself I follow this blog and comment to make sure that no one stumbles by here and is mis-informed about the innocence of the three lacrosse players.

I have in the past pointed out the fallacy of several of Sid's positions on different matters simply because: (1) he is uninformed and I would like that the few readers here be better informed, and (2) Sid is often very one-sided in his view of an issue.

That said, the lacrosse case is over and only a very few misguided people hatefully spread lies about the innocent men. That is shameful conduct.

Crystal's case is nearly over. The U.S.D.Ct. will shortly deny her Writ and the case will then be finally over and done with. Crystal will be released on February 28, 2026, hopefully rehabilitated by her stay with the North Carolina Department of Corrections.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

I strongly advise that you begin seeking psychological help now, because it is obvious from your comments that you are going to be mortified by the outcomes. Let me tell you what will happen. First, the magistrate judge will grant Crystal's motions to be released on her own recognizance and for the court to unseal the Nichols' 18-page document and give it to Crystal. I'm not sure about the State Bar motion... that's a toss-up. Finally, the magistrate's recommendation to the district court judge will be to grant the habeas corpus and the State will drop its prosecution against Mangum.

Prepare your mind for the fact that Crystal will be released soon... within 2017; not anywhere's near 2026.

Also, you might want to place your order now for the crying towel... just to make sure that you get it in time for Crystal's release from custody.; May 11, 2017 at 5:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Abe Froman, I can see where you are coming from. Very similar to KC Johnson making the decision to shut down his blog of the Lacrosse case. For myself this is the last blog that is actively discussing the Lacrosse case and Mangum. Kenhyderal is a troll, as he really does nothing to help Mangum or add anything to the Lacrosse case. Now Sidney is different in that he is attempting to get Mangum released and she has accepted his help. For a period of time, I thought Sidney might have a chance(new trial for Mangum). But, at this point he has wandered far off the path of any success.

My wife has asked me multiple times why I follow this blog and I really do not have an answer other than I have followed the Lacrosse case for years while it played out and this is the last ending that has not completed. Basically, when Sidney gives up there will be nothing to follow. There were many bad people trying to put three men in jail no matter what the evidence showed and to this day they need to be confronted.

In terms of your count down, it really can be compressed to:

"Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison on February 28, 2026."

This site is currently not so much focused on the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, but rather on the injustices of the vendetta-driven prosecution and persecution of Crystal Mangum as payback for her role as accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case. Readers, visitors, and commenters of this blog site are the most well-informed individuals about the 2011 death of Reginald Daye and the murder case against Mangum. For example, the average Joe/Jane knows absolutely nothing about the esophageal intubation by Duke University Hospital staff. They don't know about Daye's weeklong comatose state or his elective removal from life-support either. That is because the mainstream media has been in collusion to keep the truths of this case from the general population. The media is biased against Mangum and has as its priorities the protection of Duke University Hospital and Dr. Clay Nichols. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people believe that Daye died as a direct complication of the stab wound inflicted to his side by Mangum. Like the jurors who were misled by attorneys on both sides and the judge during trial, the masses have been misled by the mainstream media. This blog site is the ONLY source of truth about this case.; May 11, 2017 at 5:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

Am busy trying to complete work on the next sharlog. Hope to have it posted by this weekend. It is fairly lengthy, and when producing large productions that utilize lots of memory I tend to run into complications on occasion.

As you were.; May 11, 2017 at 5:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr - An honest question:

How does labeling you as "a Durham man" injure your reputation?

And a follow up:

How do you prove that labeling you "a Durham man" was done maliciously?

Thank you,

A Charlotte Man :); May 11, 2017 at 6:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hmmm. So, A Lawyer, you believe that Gabe Roth's article was accurate when it claimed that I accosted Justice Breyer at the event at Duke University? And ergo, my lawsuit against Fix-the-Court and Roth will be dismissed?

Is it also your position that I am a "Durham man" as WRAL-5 News stated? (Keep in mind that I was not born in Durham, never resided in Durham, and never proclaimed Durham as my home.) Is it also your position that my 2010 lawsuit was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case?

The libel suits are awaiting action. Although the Federal case against Roth and Fix-the-Court was filed on January 3, 2017, the defendants have yet to file a Response."

Sidney, even I, a legal layman, know what what you describe as libel does not add up to libel.

Calling innocent men guilty of a crime which never happened, now that is libel. Fortunately for you, you are judgment proof.; May 11, 2017 at 7:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, Walt.

I strongly advise that you begin seeking psychological help now, because it is obvious from your comments that you are going to be mortified by the outcomes. Let me tell you what will happen. First, the magistrate judge will grant Crystal's motions to be released on her own recognizance and for the court to unseal the Nichols' 18-page document and give it to Crystal. I'm not sure about the State Bar motion... that's a toss-up. Finally, the magistrate's recommendation to the district court judge will be to grant the habeas corpus and the State will drop its prosecution against Mangum.

Prepare your mind for the fact that Crystal will be released soon... within 2017; not anywhere's near 2026.

Also, you might want to place your order now for the crying towel... just to make sure that you get it in time for Crystal's release from custody."

Hey Sidney, how longh have you been making promises like this and then failing to deliver on them?; May 11, 2017 at 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"This site is currently not so much focused on the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, but rather on the injustices of the vendetta-driven prosecution and persecution of Crystal Mangum as payback for her role as accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case."

Correction: Crystal was the false accuser in the Duke Rape Hoax. Prove she told the truth when she claimed she had been raped.

"Readers, visitors, and commenters of this blog site are the most well-informed individuals about the 2011 death of Reginald Daye and the murder case against Mangum."

Yeah. We know Crystal murdered Reginald Daye, in spite of your clumsy attemprts to sow disinformation.

"For example, the average Joe/Jane knows absolutely nothing about the esophageal intubation by Duke University Hospital staff. They don't know about Daye's weeklong comatose state or his elective removal from life-support either. That is because the mainstream media has been in collusion to keep the truths of this case from the general population."

Sidney, all this happened to Reginald Daye because Crystal stabbed him and in the process inflicted a penetrating wound on his colon, which set him up for an intra abdominal infection. All those events happened as a result of a workup for infection. The only ones trying to keep the truth8 away from the population are you and Kenny. Fortunately neither you nor Kenny are very good at it.

"The media is biased against Mangum and has as its priorities the protection of Duke University Hospital and Dr. Clay Nichols. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people believe that Daye died as a direct complication of the stab wound inflicted to his side by Mangum."

Reginald Daye did die as a result of his stab wound. Considering your total lack of clinical experience, your total lack of clinical competence, any opinion you hav is meaningless.

"Like the jurors who were misled by attorneys on both sides and the judge during trial, the masses have been misled by the mainstream media. This blog site is the ONLY source of truth about this case."

The only ones misled in this case are you and Kenny, and you hav misled yourselves via your biases an your stupidity.; May 11, 2017 at 8:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Hrr:

"HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!"

Meaning, again, hey everyone, listen to me, pay attention to me.

"Am busy trying to complete work on the next sharlog. Hope to have it posted by this weekend. It is fairly lengthy, and when producing large productions that utilize lots of memory I tend to run into complications on occasion."

You got that wrong. You have run into complications just about every time you open your mouth or publish anything.; May 11, 2017 at 8:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr - An honest question:

How does labeling you as "a Durham man" injure your reputation?

And a follow up:

How do you prove that labeling you "a Durham man" was done maliciously?

Thank you,

A Charlotte Man :)

Hey, A Charlotte Man.

The point I am trying to make is that WRAL purposely defined me as a "Durham" man in order to make their claim that my lawsuit against Duke University was related to the Duke Lacrosse case. Had I been labeled a "Raleigh" man (which would be accurate), or even a "Charlotte" man, then it would seem less likely that someone outside the city of Durham would be filing a lawsuit in the Duke Lacrosse case. The labeling me as a "Durham man" is not in itself derogatory, demeaning, or damaging to my reputation, but it is blatantly false... it is not an accident or honest mistake as its intent is to mislead.

For example, the headline is accurate and truthful when it describes me as a "supporter of the Duke Lacrosse accuser," but again, it brings the Duke Lacrosse case into the picture and makes it appear more likely that my lawsuit was directly related to the Duke Lacrosse case... which it wasn't.

The writer(s) of the WRAL online article knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the article which included errors and untruths, as well as misleading statements.

The problem with the statement that my lawsuit was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, which the paper described as "discredited" makes me appear to be vexatious. Because neither WRAL nor any other media covered the 2010 discrimination incident or the lawsuit it spawned, unenlightened people had no reason to question that my lawsuit was related to the Duke Lacrosse case. Viewers and visitors to this blog site, however, would likely be able to better recognize problems with the online article.

Hope that you have been adequately elucidated.; May 11, 2017 at 9:48 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney,

I want to thank you for confirming to all of your readers that my 5/6 6:46 PM assertion that you are unwilling to have an honest discussion has validity.

You reacted indignantly in a 5/7 6:08 AM comment: How do you have the gall to say that I am unwilling to have a serious conversations? You asked for an example.

I responded on 5/7 1:47 PM with my first example: your longstanding refusal to comment on Mangum's 4/6/06 written statement. I asked you how the failure to find DNA that matched any of the defendants (or any of the players for that matter) was not exculpatory in light of the specific allegations Magnum made in that statement. The failure to find DNA that matched the defendants proved with virtual certainty that Mangum's specific allegations were false. How is proof that Mangum's specific allegations were false not exculpatory?

Given that these specific accusations were proven false with virtual certainty, how can you continue to claim that Mangum's accusations were not proven false?

Although you have made five comments today, four days after I provided the example you requested, you have once again failed to respond. Indeed, you failed even to acknowledge that I provided an example as you requested.

Sidney, I will accept as true your statement that your comments are sincere and heart-felt. However, sincerely expressed opinions are not sufficient for an honest discussion. When others disagree with your opinions, analyze the weakness in your opinion and provide evidence that your opinion is incorrect, the mere repetition of that opinion and ignoring all criticism does not constitute honest discussion.

You asked for an example. I gave you one. You ignored it.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 11, 2017 at 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"The point I am trying to make is that WRAL purposely defined me as a "Durham" man in order to make their claim that my lawsuit against Duke University was related to the Duke Lacrosse case. Had I been labeled a "Raleigh" man (which would be accurate), or even a "Charlotte" man, then it would seem less likely that someone outside the city of Durham would be filing a lawsuit in the Duke Lacrosse case. The labeling me as a "Durham man" is not in itself derogatory, demeaning, or damaging to my reputation, but it is blatantly false... it is not an accident or honest mistake as its intent is to mislead."

You just shot down your own case. Your suits against Duke contain multiple statements, that Duke conspired to discriminate against you because you advocated for Nifong and his activity iin the Duke Rape Hoax.; May 11, 2017 at 10:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Because neither WRAL nor any other media covered the 2010 discrimination incident or the lawsuit it spawned, unenlightened people had no reason to question that my lawsuit was related to the Duke Lacrosse case."

You alleged said discrimination happened because of your advocacy for Nifong and his role in the Duke Rape Hoax.

And you have not proven that Duke did discriminate against you.; May 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "...makes me appear to be vexatious."

You are vexatious. You have filed three frivolous lawsuits on the same issue. Lost all three times and are under an order prohibiting further filings. It is you made yourself vexatious. WRAL reporting on your vexatious conduct is not defaming you. You defamed yourself. Not to mention your ad hominem attacks on various judges. Yes, Sid you are vexatious. You're going to lose that one.

Walt-in-Durham; May 11, 2017 at 1:41 PM
A Lawyer said...: So, A Lawyer, you believe that Gabe Roth's article was accurate when it claimed that I accosted Justice Breyer at the event at Duke University? And ergo, my lawsuit against Fix-the-Court and Roth will be dismissed?

The article may not have been accurate, but is not defamatory. "Accosted" does not mean "assaulted."

Is it also your position that I am a "Durham man" as WRAL-5 News stated? (Keep in mind that I was not born in Durham, never resided in Durham, and never proclaimed Durham as my home.)

Once again, inaccurate but not defamatory.

Is it also your position that my 2010 lawsuit was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case?

We've been over this. You mention the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case in paragraph 1 of your 2010 lawsuit.; May 11, 2017 at 8:48 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

"The point I am trying to make is that WRAL purposely defined me as a "Durham" man in order to make their claim that my lawsuit against Duke University was related to the Duke Lacrosse case. Had I been labeled a "Raleigh" man (which would be accurate), or even a "Charlotte" man, then it would seem less likely that someone outside the city of Durham would be filing a lawsuit in the Duke Lacrosse case. The labeling me as a "Durham man" is not in itself derogatory, demeaning, or damaging to my reputation, but it is blatantly false... it is not an accident or honest mistake as its intent is to mislead."

You just shot down your own case. Your suits against Duke contain multiple statements, that Duke conspired to discriminate against you because you advocated for Nifong and his activity iin the Duke Rape Hoax.

I don't agree with your conclusion. Yes, I believe, and have stated, that Duke conspired to discriminate against me because of my advocacy for Nifong and that Mr. Nifong was active in the Duke Lacrosse case. That I don't deny. But my complaint against Duke University is regarding its actions against me in April 2010 during an event that was opened to the public which I attended and was acting as others similarly situated. I would have been arrested on some bogus trumped up charge had it not been for Law Professor James Coleman. And that was the university's plan... to have it publicized that I was arrested and to disgrace the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong.

How in heavens do you conclude that my lawsuit had anything to do with the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. My brief centered on my treatment by the security guard, the campus police... and it had nothing to do with the Duke Lacrosse case. Face it, WRAL-5 News lied!; May 12, 2017 at 6:52 AM
Anonymous said...: As has been explained to you a few hundred times - lying is not defamation. You have not proved that you have been "defamed" by anything in those articles. You are ignoring the law (which you always do).

Your lawsuits will fail because you refuse to learn, and rather than realize it's because of you, you will blame the system and racism.

You are pathetic.; May 12, 2017 at 6:53 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
So, A Lawyer, you believe that Gabe Roth's article was accurate when it claimed that I accosted Justice Breyer at the event at Duke University? And ergo, my lawsuit against Fix-the-Court and Roth will be dismissed?

The article may not have been accurate, but is not defamatory. "Accosted" does not mean "assaulted."

Is it also your position that I am a "Durham man" as WRAL-5 News stated? (Keep in mind that I was not born in Durham, never resided in Durham, and never proclaimed Durham as my home.)

Once again, inaccurate but not defamatory.

Is it also your position that my 2010 lawsuit was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case?

We've been over this. You mention the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case in paragraph 1 of your 2010 lawsuit.

C'mon, A Lawyer... get real! To accost someone, by accepted definition, is to un-invitedly approach and verbally berate a person. It may not be as critical an action as assaulting someone, but both actions are uncivil and hostile... only to different degrees. Both are disrespectful.

First of all, I never approached the Justice. Second of all, I never spoke, shouted, or tried in any manner to communicate with the Justice. Roth made it appear as though I was harassing and being disrespectful to the Justice.

Actually, the Fix-the-Court article didn't even need to mention my name or the incident. It was a gratuitous bashing... most likely in collusion with WRAL.; May 12, 2017 at 7:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: JSwift said...
Sidney,

I want to thank you for confirming to all of your readers that my 5/6 6:46 PM assertion that you are unwilling to have an honest discussion has validity.

You reacted indignantly in a 5/7 6:08 AM comment: How do you have the gall to say that I am unwilling to have a serious conversations? You asked for an example.

I responded on 5/7 1:47 PM with my first example: your longstanding refusal to comment on Mangum's 4/6/06 written statement. I asked you how the failure to find DNA that matched any of the defendants (or any of the players for that matter) was not exculpatory in light of the specific allegations Magnum made in that statement. The failure to find DNA that matched the defendants proved with virtual certainty that Mangum's specific allegations were false. How is proof that Mangum's specific allegations were false not exculpatory?

Given that these specific accusations were proven false with virtual certainty, how can you continue to claim that Mangum's accusations were not proven false?

Although you have made five comments today, four days after I provided the example you requested, you have once again failed to respond. Indeed, you failed even to acknowledge that I provided an example as you requested.

Sidney, I will accept as true your statement that your comments are sincere and heart-felt. However, sincerely expressed opinions are not sufficient for an honest discussion. When others disagree with your opinions, analyze the weakness in your opinion and provide evidence that your opinion is incorrect, the mere repetition of that opinion and ignoring all criticism does not constitute honest discussion.

You asked for an example. I gave you one. You ignored it.

John D. Smith
New York, NY

Hey, JSwift.

I don't mean to ignore you or your example, but as I have stated repeatedly, I am not well versed on the Duke Lacrosse case, nor do I care to be. That happened long ago, and there is nothing that I can do about it... at least not at this point in time. Crystal, however was indirectly persecuted and prosecuted because of it when you look for motive in the trumped up murder charge and conviction in Reginald Daye's death.

Factual issues with the Daye death are at my disposal, and I am able to comment and advocate based on them. In the Duke Lacrosse case, I have no access to the discovery, and I believe much of the information in it has been sealed. Why waste my time with speculation when it has no direct bearing on the wrongful incarceration and conviction of Mangum. Instead, I will devote my time to focus on the flawed murder case in hopes of having her conviction overturned and having her freed.

So, don't think that I'm ignoring you, JSwift. I would never do that.; May 12, 2017 at 7:14 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
As has been explained to you a few hundred times - lying is not defamation. You have not proved that you have been "defamed" by anything in those articles. You are ignoring the law (which you always do).

Your lawsuits will fail because you refuse to learn, and rather than realize it's because of you, you will blame the system and racism.

You are pathetic.

By your comments, I am led to believe that you agree that Fix-the-Court and WRAL-5 News both lied in their publications to the public.

I made many attempts to rectify the errors in both publications... Fix-the-Court eventually removed any mention, but refused to make a retraction or give me equal time. In fact, Fix-the-Court ignored my repeated attempts to resolve the issue. That is why I was forced to take it to court.

WRAL-5 News's position, according to the lawsuit, is that its story is "substantially true"... that I am a "Durham man" and that my lawsuit was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. Even you are aware, I believe, that these statements are lies. They are not "substantially" true in any sense. But WRAL is acting like a bully (as did Duke University) in trying to defend itself rather than working with me to accurately inform its public, viewers, and subscribers of the truths of my lawsuit.

Clearly the article by WRAL (and used as a source by Fix-the-Court) was defamatory as it was used as a sole reference by the racist site "shitskin.com" in which it included in its title the epithet N-word to describe me. (To my knowledge, Google finally removed that offensive site.); May 12, 2017 at 7:28 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "...makes me appear to be vexatious."

You are vexatious. You have filed three frivolous lawsuits on the same issue. Lost all three times and are under an order prohibiting further filings. It is you made yourself vexatious. WRAL reporting on your vexatious conduct is not defaming you. You defamed yourself. Not to mention your ad hominem attacks on various judges. Yes, Sid you are vexatious. You're going to lose that one.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

I don't mind WRAL-5 News reporting on my lawsuit against Duke University... in fact, I applauded them, as no other media would touch it. My problem with WRAL is that it did not make a truthful report... and it was misleading in addition. Although it claims to be in the pursuit of excellence, its biased and false reporting when it comes to me and Crystal Mangum is a disgrace and in violation of journalistic ethics.

Vexatious, I am not. Persistent, yes.; May 12, 2017 at 7:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"C'mon, A Lawyer... get real! To accost someone, by accepted definition, is to un-invitedly approach and verbally berate a person. It may not be as critical an action as assaulting someone, but both actions are uncivil and hostile... only to different degrees. Both are disrespectful.

First of all, I never approached the Justice. Second of all, I never spoke, shouted, or tried in any manner to communicate with the Justice. Roth made it appear as though I was harassing and being disrespectful to the Justice.

Actually, the Fix-the-Court article didn't even need to mention my name or the incident. It was a gratuitous bashing... most likely in collusion with WRAL."

Sidney once again shows he is a delusional megalomaniac.; May 12, 2017 at 8:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"I don't agree with your conclusion. Yes, I believe, and have stated, that Duke conspired to discriminate against me because of my advocacy for Nifong and that Mr. Nifong was active in the Duke Lacrosse case. That I don't deny. But my complaint against Duke University is regarding its actions against me in April 2010 during an event that was opened to the public which I attended and was acting as others similarly situated. I would have been arrested on some bogus trumped up charge had it not been for Law Professor James Coleman. And that was the university's plan... to have it publicized that I was arrested and to disgrace the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong.

How in heavens do you conclude that my lawsuit had anything to do with the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. My brief centered on my treatment by the security guard, the campus police... and it had nothing to do with the Duke Lacrosse case. Face it, WRAL-5 News lied!"

No, you lied.

As A Lawyer had pointed out, you said Duke conspired to discriminate against you because you were an advocate for Nifon. You admitted on many occasions in your blog that you advocated for Nifong because of what happened to him in the Duke Rape Hoax.

You have admitted that your frivolous lawsuits against Duke happened because of your involvement, via J4N, with the Duke Rape Hoax. That you attempt non plausible denial does not change that.; May 12, 2017 at 8:54 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney explains: as I have stated repeatedly, I am not well versed on the Duke Lacrosse case, nor do I care to be.

Despite the fact that you admit that you are "not well versed on the Duke Lacrosse case" you founded this blog site in August 2008 with the express intent of convincing readers that Mike Nifong was unfairly treated in the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case and of restoring his law license.

Before Magnum was arrested in April 2010 in the Milton Walker case, this blog was focused primarily on the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. I first raised this issue in January 2010, and you promised shortly thereafter to respond at your earliest convenience.You failed to live up to your promise. During the period in which the blog focused on the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, readers provided evidence and analyses of that evidence that contradicted your "sincere" and "heart-fe;t" opinion. You ignored all of this to hold onto your discredited opinions. That is by its nature a refusal or inability on your part to engage in an honest discussion.

Your continued statements (including some in court filings) of your opinion that Mangum's accusations have never been proven false are either deliberate lies or a continuing demonstration of your inability to engage in honest discussion.

You have proven my statement true. I ask that you apologize for suggesting that I made an unfounded assertion regarding you.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; May 12, 2017 at 8:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, JSwift.

"I don't mean to ignore you or your example, but as I have stated repeatedly, I am not well versed on the Duke Lacrosse case, nor do I care to be. That happened long ago, and there is nothing that I can do about it... at least not at this point in time."

Oh come now. On multiple times on your blog you have posted that you knew the truth about the Duke Rape Hoax, and that the people who accepted your version were the only informed people regarding Duke Rape Hoax. I recall at one time you posting that the producers of the ESPN Documentary "Fantastic Lies" did not consult you because they did not want to know the truth about the alleged rape.

"Crystal, however was indirectly persecuted and prosecuted because of it when you look for motive in the trumped up murder charge and conviction in Reginald Daye's death."

The Murder charge was not trumped up. Crystal murdered Reginald Daye and her involvement as the vitimizer/false accuser in the Duke Rape Hoax had nothing to do with it. Very Trumpian of you to believe in alternative facts.

"Factual issues with the Daye death are at my disposal, and I am able to comment and advocate based on them."

No you don't.

"In the Duke Lacrosse case, I have no access to the discovery, and I believe much of the information in it has been sealed. Why waste my time with speculation when it has no direct bearing on the wrongful incarceration and conviction of Mangum. Instead, I will devote my time to focus on the flawed murder case in hopes of having her conviction overturned and having her freed."

In the Duke Rape Hoax, you never had access to any facts in the case. What the evidence showed, that no rape ever happened, that there was no evidence to show Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she was raped, is part of the Public record. You choose to be willfully ignorant of the public record. That does not mean that there is evidence hidden away somewhere. That you believe that discovery has been sealed is irrelevant.

"So, don't think that I'm ignoring you, JSwift. I would never do that."

But you do ignore facts, in the Duke Rape Hoax and in the Reginald Daye murder.; May 12, 2017 at 9:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"By your comments, I am led to believe that you agree that Fix-the-Court and WRAL-5 News both lied in their publications to the public.

I made many attempts to rectify the errors in both publications... Fix-the-Court eventually removed any mention, but refused to make a retraction or give me equal time. In fact, Fix-the-Court ignored my repeated attempts to resolve the issue. That is why I was forced to take it to court.

WRAL-5 News's position, according to the lawsuit, is that its story is "substantially true"... that I am a "Durham man" and that my lawsuit was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. Even you are aware, I believe, that these statements are lies. They are not "substantially" true in any sense. But WRAL is acting like a bully (as did Duke University) in trying to defend itself rather than working with me to accurately inform its public, viewers, and subscribers of the truths of my lawsuit.

Clearly the article by WRAL (and used as a source by Fix-the-Court) was defamatory as it was used as a sole reference by the racist site "shitskin.com" in which it included in its title the epithet N-word to describe me. (To my knowledge, Google finally removed that offensive site.)"

Hey Sidney, as the legal experts have explained, which explanations you try to willfully ignore, what you have published here does not add up to defamation.\

The other part, you can not prove you suffered any damages because of what was said. That you do not like what was said does not add up to damages.; May 12, 2017 at 9:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, Walt.

I don't mind WRAL-5 News reporting on my lawsuit against Duke University... in fact, I applauded them, as no other media would touch it. My problem with WRAL is that it did not make a truthful report... and it was misleading in addition. Although it claims to be in the pursuit of excellence, its biased and false reporting when it comes to me and Crystal Mangum is a disgrace and in violation of journalistic ethics.

Vexatious, I am not. Persistent, yes."

Persistent, yes, in the pursuit of, not the truth but of the alternate facts you delusionally believe are the truth.

Vexatious, absolutely. That you are in denial is irrelevant.; May 12, 2017 at 9:10 AM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Vexatious, I am not. Persistent, yes."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT [manual buzzer noise] Run him!

Three frivolous lawsuits on the exact same set of facts makes you vexatious.

Walt-in-Durham; May 12, 2017 at 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Free Daniel Holtzclaw the former OKC police officer who was falsely accused or rape.Just like the Duke lacrosse players he never would have wanted to have sex the ugly prostitutes who lied about him.Like Crystal they're just too gross.; May 13, 2017 at 2:03 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Right on kenhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril..; May 13, 2017 at 8:36 AM
kenhyderal said...: Hopefully your re-post of one of my posts in defence of Crystal, with the appendage "right on kenhyderal" in the manner of Malek Williams, is an indication that you are in agreement. A more honest way, though, would be to say, "here's a quote from Kenhyderal which I agree with". Those who are new here might come to the conclusion that these were your words. I hope your intent is not like Williams, making mischief here. At any rate, the post provides good information for any who have based their opinion of Crystal on Duke Lacrosse Defenders; May 13, 2017 at 1:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"At any rate, the post provides good information for any who have based their opinion of Crystal on Duke Lacrosse Defenders".

No it doesn't. Crystal was and is a false accuser.

Kenny has provided zero evidence that Crystal was ever raped. He has provided zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped.; May 13, 2017 at 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Great news - Duke lacrosse defeated Johns Hopkins to advance to the quarterfinals.Let's hope they win another national championship.; May 14, 2017 at 1:42 AM
Anonymous said...: The Duke lacrosse players could easily have had sex with Crystal Mangum by just giving her more money but none of them wanted to.They weren't that drunk.; May 14, 2017 at 1:44 AM
Anonymous said...: And the Bryant University Bulldogs coached by Mike Pressler is in the NCAA Lacrosse tournament also. And the brackets show they could play Duke for the championship.; May 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM
Anonymous said...: And Crystal is in jail for murdering her boyfriend, Nifong is a non entity and the falsely accused Lacrosse players are leading productive lives, unlike Sidney and Kenny.; May 14, 2017 at 8:06 AM
kenhyderal said...: For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul Mk 8:36 Do they have a clear conscience?; May 14, 2017 at 9:38 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Yes, they have a clear conscience. All your blogging is not going to change that.; May 14, 2017 at 9:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal(again accusing the innocent Lacrosse player of raping Crystal Mangum):

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul Mk 8:36 Do they have a clear conscience?"

Definition of Conscience from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conscience

"1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.

2. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.

3. an inhibiting sense of what is prudent".

Since the Lacrosse players committed no crime the obvious answer is yes.

And since you persist in accusing them when you have zero evidence the crime ever happened and zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped, it is obvious you have no conscience.

And when you ask that question you hypocritically assume you are qualified to throw stones.

John 8:7 "And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”; May 14, 2017 at 11:40 AM
kenhyderal said...: There have been a lot of stones thrown on this blog, especially at Crystal. In John 8:7 the victim and the accusers were all sinners. We have a big difference of opinion on who is the victim in the Duke Lacrosse Case. You seem to equate Crystal and her supporters with the Scribes and the Pharisees and the poor Lacrosse laddies with the unfortunate adulteress. That could be a hard sell. By the way adultery is no longer a crime, albeit a sin, but sexual assault still is.; May 14, 2017 at 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"There have been a lot of stones thrown on this blog, especially at Crystal."

So exposing her as a false accuser is throwing stones? Not quite. I repeat you have provided zero evidence that any rape or sexual assault ever happened, zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth about being raped. Funny, you cite scripture but you never cite Exodus 20 16. You see nothing wrong with hurling false accusations at innocent men.

"In John 8:7 the victim and the accusers were all sinners. We have a big difference of opinion on who is the victim in the Duke Lacrosse Case."

The essence of the big difference is, again, you have provided zero evidence that any crime ever took place, zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth when she alleged she was raped. That is not a difference of opinion. That is you being delusional, that is you being a guilt presuming wishful thinker.

"You seem to equate Crystal and her supporters with the Scribes and the Pharisees and the poor Lacrosse laddies with the unfortunate adulteress. That could be a hard sell."

Again, you have provided zero evidence that Crystal was raped, zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth when she alleged she had been raped. Taking that into consideration, the innocent Lacrosse players are Christ figures, innocent men being falsely accused. And you and Sidney are the moral equivalent of the people crying out, hang them on a cross.

Logical, fair minded, honest, sensible people realize there was no crime. You and Sidney preach there was a crime. proving you are blood thirsty rather than logical, air minded, and neither one of you have shown any honesty.

"By the way adultery is no longer a crime, albeit a sin, but sexual assault still is.

When there was no evidence of a crime, no evidence Crystal ever told the truth, what established that there was a crime at the Lacrosse party.; May 14, 2017 at 5:22 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "So exposing her as a false accuser is throwing stones?".......................... Nobody here has taken part in any expose but many here have cast stones at Crystal and bore false witness against her, falsely labeling her as a mentally ill, drug-addicted, prostitute; May 14, 2017 at 9:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "So exposing her as a false accuser is throwing stones?".......................... Nobody here has taken part in any expose but many here have cast stones at Crystal and bore false witness against her, falsely labeling her as a mentally ill, drug-addicted, prostitute".

Like it or not, the evidence is that Crystal did abuse drugs and was a sex worker. Calling her that is not bearing false witness.

Calling innocent men rapists when there is no evidence of a rape, when there is no evidence that the complaining witness told the truth, and I refer to Crystal's hand written statement given to the police(earlier in this blog someone provided a link), that IS bearing false witness, something you and Sidney have done on dozens and dozens of occasions on this blog.; May 15, 2017 at 5:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney -- I've been traveling for work and haven't had an opportunity to respond until now.

I asked you "How does labeling you as "a Durham man" injure your reputation?

You responded with:

"The point I am trying to make is that WRAL purposely defined me as a "Durham" man in order to make their claim that my lawsuit against Duke University was related to the Duke Lacrosse case. Had I been labeled a "Raleigh" man (which would be accurate), or even a "Charlotte" man, then it would seem less likely that someone outside the city of Durham would be filing a lawsuit in the Duke Lacrosse case. The labeling me as a "Durham man" is not in itself derogatory, demeaning, or damaging to my reputation, but it is blatantly false... it is not an accident or honest mistake as its intent is to mislead."

Note here you stated "The labeling me as a "Durham man" is not in itself derogatory, demeaning, or damaging to my reputation..."

It appears you think that labeling you a "Durham man" is NOT grounds for libel.

And again, you appear to agree there's no grounds for libel:

"For example, the headline is accurate and truthful when it describes me as a "supporter of the Duke Lacrosse accuser," "

Here's where your statements get confusing:

"but again, it brings the Duke Lacrosse case into the picture and makes it appear more likely that my lawsuit was directly related to the Duke Lacrosse case... which it wasn't."

Not being familiar with your lawsuit(s), I went back to the original Harr v. Duke I. You do realize you mentioned the Duke Lacrosse case in the first 4 paragraphs of the statement of claim of that documented? If anyone is to blame for making your lawsuits about the Duke Lacrosse case, it's yourself.

You also stated: "The problem with the statement that my lawsuit was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, which the paper described as "discredited" makes me appear to be vexatious. Because neither WRAL nor any other media covered the 2010 discrimination incident or the lawsuit it spawned, unenlightened people had no reason to question that my lawsuit was related to the Duke Lacrosse case. Viewers and visitors to this blog site, however, would likely be able to better recognize problems with the online article."

Judge Eagles had stated that you "abused the judicial process" and defined your lawsuits as "vexatious and frivolous" (See here.)

If a judge has stated that your lawsuits are vexatious and frivolous in a legal document, how can WRAL be committing libel for reporting it?

Thank you for your time, and my apologies for such a long post.

A Charlotte Man; May 15, 2017 at 12:31 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney -- I've been traveling for work and haven't had an opportunity to respond until now.

I asked you "How does labeling you as "a Durham man" injure your reputation?

You responded with:

(Removed to enable lengthy response)

Note here you stated "The labeling me as a "Durham man" is not in itself derogatory, demeaning, or damaging to my reputation..."

It appears you think that labeling you a "Durham man" is NOT grounds for libel.

And again, you appear to agree there's no grounds for libel:

"For example, the headline is accurate and truthful when it describes me as a "supporter of the Duke Lacrosse accuser," "

(Removed to enable lengthy response)

Judge Eagles had stated that you "abused the judicial process" and defined your lawsuits as "vexatious and frivolous" (See here.)

If a judge has stated that your lawsuits are vexatious and frivolous in a legal document, how can WRAL be committing libel for reporting it?

Thank you for your time, and my apologies for such a long post.

A Charlotte Man

Hey, A Charlotte Man.

I must disagree with your analysis. I don't have my HARR-I lawsuit in front of me, but the reason it was necessary to mention the 2006 Duke Lacrosse was to give a foundation for the motivations against me by Duke University during the 2010 incident that occurred four years later. Because I was an advocate at the time for Mike Nifong, the Durham District Attorney forced to resign because of the Duke Lacrosse case, Duke University harbored animus against me... that was the reason for its actions against me. Duke University's intention was to have me arrested on a trumped up charge with the Associated Press writer (who was part of the ambush) poised to write an article disparaging me and discrediting the grassroots organization I co-founded - Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong.

My lawsuit, filed in 2011, was directly due to the treatment of Duke University against me at the 2010 event... one in which I barely escaped being arrested had it not been for Law Professor James Coleman coming to my rescue. My lawsuit had absolutely nothing to do with the 2006 event involving Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse team, Mike Nifong, or party-goers.

Merely mentioning the Duke Lacrosse case does not accurately depict what the 2011 lawsuit against Duke University was about. As I have repeatedly stated, the 2006 Duke Lacrosse incident and the 2010 Duke University discrimination incident are two separate entities. It was my mistreatment by Duke University in 2010 that triggered my lawsuit... not anything that happened four years prior.

As far as WRAL reporting that the judge found my lawsuit to be vexatious and frivolous has nothing to do with my libel complaint. In fact, I praised the media station for even covering my lawsuit (the only article about the 2010 discrimination or any of the three lawsuits I filed)... my only complaint were its inaccuracies. For WRAL to state that I am a Durham man and that my lawsuit was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case were known by the media writers to be false, and misleading. And it done for the purpose of discrediting me.

The article was inaccurate and biased. Although WRAL proclaims a "relentless pursuit of excellence" it can't even get basic facts of the story correct... not because of ineptitude, but because it wants to spin the story to disparage me. In its defense, it proclaims that it is "substantially true" that I am a "Durham man"... even though I have spent all my decade's worth of life living in Raleigh... wasn't born in Durham... and never claimed Durham as my residence. WRAL also claims that it is "substantially true" that my lawsuit was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case... just because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong? It's absurd.

Hope that you have been elucidated.; May 15, 2017 at 6:14 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Vexatious, I am not. Persistent, yes."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT [manual buzzer noise] Run him!

Three frivolous lawsuits on the exact same set of facts makes you vexatious.

Walt-in-Durham

Hey, Walt.

Actually, Vexatious requires an element which you conveniently omitted... filing a lawsuit that one believes to be unwinnable, but for the primary purpose of causing harassment and irritation. Fact is that my case was extremely strong and bolstered by audio-evidence, and I had every expectation of prevailing. Fact is that Judge Eagles never made her case that I was vexatious or that my case was frivolous.

Ding-a-ling.; May 15, 2017 at 6:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney- The Duke Lacrosse case was featured prominently in Harr I, II, and III. You're just being facetious to claim otherwise.

And you've agreed that labelling you a "Durham man" is not libelous.; May 15, 2017 at 7:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, A Charlotte Man.

I must disagree with your analysis. I don't have my HARR-I lawsuit in front of me, but the reason it was necessary to mention the 2006 Duke Lacrosse was to give a foundation for the motivations against me by Duke University during the 2010 incident that occurred four years later. Because I was an advocate at the time for Mike Nifong, the Durham District Attorney forced to resign because of the Duke Lacrosse case, Duke University harbored animus against me... that was the reason for its actions against me. Duke University's intention was to have me arrested on a trumped up charge with the Associated Press writer (who was part of the ambush) poised to write an article disparaging me and discrediting the grassroots organization I co-founded - Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong.

My lawsuit, filed in 2011, was directly due to the treatment of Duke University against me at the 2010 event... one in which I barely escaped being arrested had it not been for Law Professor James Coleman coming to my rescue. My lawsuit had absolutely nothing to do with the 2006 event involving Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse team, Mike Nifong, or party-goers.

Merely mentioning the Duke Lacrosse case does not accurately depict what the 2011 lawsuit against Duke University was about. As I have repeatedly stated, the 2006 Duke Lacrosse incident and the 2010 Duke University discrimination incident are two separate entities. It was my mistreatment by Duke University in 2010 that triggered my lawsuit... not anything that happened four years prior.

As far as WRAL reporting that the judge found my lawsuit to be vexatious and frivolous has nothing to do with my libel complaint. In fact, I praised the media station for even covering my lawsuit (the only article about the 2010 discrimination or any of the three lawsuits I filed)... my only complaint were its inaccuracies. For WRAL to state that I am a Durham man and that my lawsuit was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case were known by the media writers to be false, and misleading. And it done for the purpose of discrediting me.

The article was inaccurate and biased. Although WRAL proclaims a "relentless pursuit of excellence" it can't even get basic facts of the story correct... not because of ineptitude, but because it wants to spin the story to disparage me. In its defense, it proclaims that it is "substantially true" that I am a "Durham man"... even though I have spent all my decade's worth of life living in Raleigh... wasn't born in Durham... and never claimed Durham as my residence. WRAL also claims that it is "substantially true" that my lawsuit was about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case... just because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong? It's absurd."

You have admitted multiple times in this post that your lawsuits against Duke were because Duke conspired to discriminate against you because of your attitudes towards the Duke Rape Hoax.; May 16, 2017 at 3:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"
Hey, Walt.

Actually, Vexatious requires an element which you conveniently omitted... filing a lawsuit that one believes to be unwinnable, but for the primary purpose of causing harassment and irritation. Fact is that my case was extremely strong and bolstered by audio-evidence, and I had every expectation of prevailing. Fact is that Judge Eagles never made her case that I was vexatious or that my case was frivolous.

Ding-a-ling."

Yes you are a ding a ling, a delusional megalomaniacal ding a ling.

Your lawsuits were vexatious.; May 16, 2017 at 3:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

"A single action, even a frivolous one, is usually not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious. Rather, a pattern of frivolous legal actions is typically required to rise to the level of vexatious."

Considering HarrII and HarrIII were repetitions of Harr I which was dismissed because you did not have a case, you did sink to the level of vexatious litigant. You filed Harr II and Harr III knowing you did not have a case.

P.S. Regarding the merits of Harr I and your tape recording. Contrary to what you post on J4N your tape revealed that you became belligerent picked a fight with a security guard after he instructed to leave. Professor Coleman did not try to intervene on your behalf. You tried to drag him into the situation.; May 16, 2017 at 3:37 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney- The Duke Lacrosse case was featured prominently in Harr I, II, and III. You're just being facetious to claim otherwise.

And you've agreed that labelling you a "Durham man" is not libelous.

Labeling me a "Durham man" was not malicious. However, it was a false statement that WRAL knew was false and was made for the purpose of misleading people to believe the worst of me.

Likewise, the claim that my "lawsuit was about the Duke Lacrosse case" is not in and of itself malicious, but like "Durham man" it is totally false... and the author knew it was false when he/she wrote it.

Final analysis: Both statements about "Durham man" and "lawsuit about the Duke Lacrosse case" are false and libelous.

Comprende?; May 16, 2017 at 4:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid wrote: "Final analysis: Both statements about "Durham man" and "lawsuit about the Duke Lacrosse case" are false and libelous.

Comprende?"

Sid, you are the uneducated fool who does not comprehend.; May 16, 2017 at 4:52 AM
Anonymous said...: No Sid, you yourself stated that labeling you "a "Durham man" is not in itself derogatory, demeaning, or damaging to my reputation".. You also made your Duke I, II, and III cases about the Duke Lacrosse case when you featured it prominently in all 3 court documents.

Final analysis: If it's not derogatory, defamatory, or maliciously damaging to your reputation, it's not libel.

¿Comprendes?; May 16, 2017 at 6:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Labeling me a "Durham man" was not malicious. However, it was a false statement that WRAL knew was false and was made for the purpose of misleading people to believe the worst of me."

How do you propose to prove that? How do you prove that was the intent of the people at WRAL. Your usual reply to this is, what else could it be. That reply does not meet the legal burden of proog.

"Likewise, the claim that my "lawsuit was about the Duke Lacrosse case" is not in and of itself malicious, but like "Durham man" it is totally false... and the author knew it was false when he/she wrote it."

That statement, as others have explained to you, was not false. In your filings in Harr I and II and III you have made multiple statements that Duke conspired to discriminate against you because of your advocacy for Nifong, which advocacy would have never happened had there been no Duke Rape Hoax. In your advocacy for Nifong you have claimed on multiple occasions that Nifong was unfairly and unjustly treated because of his involvement in the Duke Rape case.

"Final analysis: Both statements about "Durham man" and "lawsuit about the Duke Lacrosse case" are false and libelous."

No they are not.

You do not "Comprende". Lack of understanding on your part does not give your case merit. Do you "Comrende?" that?; May 16, 2017 at 7:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Sharlog?; May 16, 2017 at 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

I want a little justice for the Fong.; May 16, 2017 at 4:41 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
No Sid, you yourself stated that labeling you "a "Durham man" is not in itself derogatory, demeaning, or damaging to my reputation".. You also made your Duke I, II, and III cases about the Duke Lacrosse case when you featured it prominently in all 3 court documents.

Final analysis: If it's not derogatory, defamatory, or maliciously damaging to your reputation, it's not libel.

¿Comprendes?

My position is that labeling me as a "Durham man" is materially false. It is not true! Is it your contention that I am a Durham man... and if so, based on what? On what does WRAL-5 News base its statement that I am a Durham man? It has never said.

The fact that I may have mentioned the Duke Lacrosse case in my briefs does not mean that my lawsuit was about the Duke Lacrosse case. For example, if I was to mention the Civil War in my brief, would it be logical to conclude that my lawsuit was about the Civil War? I think not. Because WRAL-5 professes a "relentless pursuit of excellence," why does it not simply tell the truth and state that my lawsuits were about a 2010 discrimination incident at Duke University... in which it unsuccessfully attempted to have me arrested?
(Rhetorical question as the reason WRAL-5 News did not mention the 2010 discrimination case is that it wanted to conceal from the people Duke University's discrimination against me.)

Consider yourself re-elucidated.; May 17, 2017 at 6:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"
My position is that labeling me as a "Durham man" is materially false. It is not true! Is it your contention that I am a Durham man... and if so, based on what? On what does WRAL-5 News base its statement that I am a Durham man? It has never said."

What specific proof do you have that WRAL willfully made that statement to defame you? That you make that claim is not proof.

"The fact that I may have mentioned the Duke Lacrosse case in my briefs does not mean that my lawsuit was about the Duke Lacrosse case."

What you claimed in your suit was that Duke conspired to discriminate against you because of your advocacy for Nifong, the disgraced corrupt prosecutor who was disbarred because of his involvement in what was the Duke Rape Hoax, not the Duke Rape Case. No rape took place.

So yes your suit WAS what was the Duke Rape Hoax, not the Duke Rape Case.; May 17, 2017 at 7:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney --

If the reporter doesn't know your from Raleigh, is he lying if he says your from Durham?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's not enough the labeling you "a Durham man" is false -- it must ALSO caused damage and be made with actual malice.

Since you've already stated that labeling you "a Durham man"...."is not in itself derogatory, demeaning, or damaging to my reputation". You've completely ruled out libel for this action.

And re: the Duke Lacrosse case -- Ask yourself this...Are you in the position you find yourself in now (with regard to Duke and your Harr I-III cases) if not for the Duke Lacrosse case and your subsequent advocacy of Mike Nifong?

If the answer is "Yes", then....Your discrimination cases were about the Duke Lacrosse case (or hoax, if you prefer).

¿Comprendes?

A Charlotte Man; May 17, 2017 at 8:57 AM
A Lawyer said...: My position is that labeling me as a "Durham man" is materially false. It is not true! Is it your contention that I am a Durham man... and if so, based on what? On what does WRAL-5 News base its statement that I am a Durham man? It has never said.

So it's false. Falsity, standing alone, is not enough to support a libel claim. You have admitted that it's "not in itself derogatory, demeaning, or damaging to my reputation." Therefore, as A Charlotte Man points out, it's not libelous.

The fact that I may have mentioned the Duke Lacrosse case in my briefs does not mean that my lawsuit was about the Duke Lacrosse case. For example, if I was to mention the Civil War in my brief, would it be logical to conclude that my lawsuit was about the Civil War? I think not.

You talked about the Duke Lacrosse case in the first four paragraphs of your Complaint. Obviously, you considered those allegations relevant to your lawsuit. Your lawsuit may have been primarily about the 2010 incident, but it was also "about" anything you included in the Complaint. So the WRAL report may have been incomplete, but it was not false.

Consider yourself re-elucidated.

No, you consider yourself re-elucidated.; May 17, 2017 at 11:34 AM
Anonymous said...: This is for Kenny:

The link to Crystal's police statement:

http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/06/crystal-gail-mangum-april-6-2006.html

You were asked at one time, if Crystal had been raped, then why did Kim Roberts/Pittman not drive her to a hospital or to a police station. Kim Roberts/Pittman drove her to a grocery store parking lot where she tried to have Crystal removed from her car. Your reply was something like, Kim Roberts/Pittman had not witnessed the rape. According to Crystal's statement, Kim Roberts was aware that something was happening to her while she was in the bathroom. Kim Roberts, according to Crystal asked her, did they hurt you.

So explain why Kim Roberts/Pittman drove her to a grocery store parking lot rather than to a hospital or to a police station.

Kim Roberts/Pittman called the police shortly after the party ended, not to report a rape but to report that people at the party house had called her and her "girlfriend" n---er". Why did Kim Pittman/Roberts not call the police to report a rape?; May 18, 2017 at 4:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Followup for Kenny:

What happened, according to Crystal was, Kim Roberts/Pittman asked her, did they hurt you, and Crystal answered, Yes.

So again explain why Kim Roberts/Pittman did not report the incident to the police, why Kim ROberts/Pittman, after hearing Crystal say she had been hurt, did not drive her to a police station or to a hospital.; May 18, 2017 at 4:37 AM
kenhyderal said...: There needed to be a trial. One with a dedicated, fair-minded, honest and crusading prosecutor like former DA Nifong; May 18, 2017 at 9:57 AM
Anonymous said...: ....Or his dedicated, fair-minded, honest and crusading assistant prosecutor, Tracey Cline.

Right, Kenny?; May 18, 2017 at 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Of course, if the outcome of the trial had been something Kenny disagreed with he'd say it was all a sham and refuse to accept the results. Kenny is nothing if not predictable.; May 18, 2017 at 10:56 AM
Anonymous said...: A trial against whom, and for what?; May 18, 2017 at 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: What the frack is going on here? I leave for a little while and come back hoping to be elucified by a nice big shlog, but all I find are these evil, mean, hate-filled, nonsensical, crazy making comments from a bunch of insane hate-crime blog mongers.

blah

blah

blah; May 18, 2017 at 12:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"There needed to be a trial."

As there was no evidence a rape ever happened, and it is obvious that Crystal lied, there was a need to dismiss the charges without going to trial, something AG Cooper did.

One with a dedicated, fair-minded, honest and crusading prosecutor like former DA Nifong".

"a fair-minded, honest and crusading prosecutor like former DA Nifong" is a figment of your and Sidney's imaginatin. There si no such individual named Nifong.

While we are at it Kenny, explain why Nifong made no9 attempt to identify the males who left their DN on Crystal. They were not Lacrosse players or party attendees.; May 18, 2017 at 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: From anonymous May 18, 2017 at 12:47 PM:

"I leave for a little while and come back hoping to be elucified by a nice big shlog, but all I find are these evil, mean, hate-filled, nonsensical, crazy making comments from a bunch of insane hate-crime blog mongers."

The only "evil, mean, hate-filled...hate-crime blog mongers" "making nonsensical, crazy ...comments" are Sidney and Kenny.; May 18, 2017 at 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Your last response was a dodge, not unusual for you.

Judging from what you said to explain Kim Robers/Pittman's behavior regarding Crystal after the party and what Crystal said in her hand written statement to the police, it was obvious Crystal was lying. It does not take a trial of innocent men to establish that.; May 18, 2017 at 4:05 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: :There needed to be a trial. One with a dedicated, fair-minded, honest and crusading prosecutor like former DA Nifong"

Another nonsense post. There was nothing fair-minded about Mike Nifong. He was unethical in his pursuit of obviously innocent people. There was no one to try. He could not identify any suspects, certainly not the defendants. Thus any trial would have been a miscarriage of justice. To be certain,every post Kenny has written has sought injustice. That's all he is here for.

Walt-in-Durham; May 19, 2017 at 6:38 AM
The Great Kilgo said...: Kenyderal, please help me! This fellxkdllll/xc,m; May 19, 2017 at 7:06 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "There was no one to try. He could not identify any suspects, certainly not the defendants. Thus any trial would have been a miscarriage of justice:.........................One or more of the defendants may well of been guilty of sexual assault and kidnapping and others, whom they are aware of; rape A rape which may have been aided and abetted by one or more of them. Theft of Crystal's money was a crime admitted to but never charged. Walt, I have said many times I am here to counter the scurrilous lies, told without true basis and, used to characterize Crystal by posters here. Those who violated her will probably never be brought to justice given the elapsed time, the probable destruction of the evidence and the shoddy police investigation but you might see Crystal's reputation restored and that of any perpetrators destroyed. That in the broadest sense would constitute justice.; May 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...: "One or more of the defendants may well of been guilty of sexual assault"

Kenny may well of been guilty of sexual assault on Crystal. There's just as much evidence linking him to the alleged assault as there is to any of the Duke LAX 3.

C'mon Kenny -- turn yourself in for committing this heinous crime, so Crystal's reputation restored and that of you nasty perpetrator destroyed. That in the broadest sense would constitute justice.; May 19, 2017 at 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...: It's either "well have" or "well've"

Thank you.

A Charlotte Man; May 19, 2017 at 9:42 AM
kenhyderal said...: You are right. Thank you Charlotte Man for correcting me.; May 19, 2017 at 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Walt said: "There was no one to try. He could not identify any suspects, certainly not the defendants. Thus any trial would have been a miscarriage of justice:.........................One or more of the defendants may well of been guilty of sexual assault and kidnapping and others, whom they are aware of; rape A rape which may have been aided and abetted by one or more of them."

What evidence do you have of this?

"Theft of Crystal's money was a crime admitted to but never charged."

If it did happen, that hardly constituted a rape or a sexual assault. That statement is irrelevant.

"Walt, I have said many times I am here to counter the scurrilous lies, told without true basis and, used to characterize Crystal by posters here."

The only scurrilous lies being told here are not being told about Crystal but about the innocent men falsely accused of raping her, and the liars are Sidney and Kenny.

"Those who violated her will probably never be brought to justice given the elapsed time, the probable destruction of the evidence and the shoddy police investigation"

No one violated Crystal. I remind you have provided zero evidence that Crystal was raped and zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth about being raped. There was no evidence which was destroyed, and the shoddy police investigation was controlled by Nifong who you claim was out for justice for Crystal.

I add, Kim Roberts/Pittman actions following the party are evidence that Crystal did lie when she claimed she had been raped, that Crystal never told Kim Pittman/Roberts that she had been attacked or hurt at the party, which she alleged in her police statement.

"but you might see Crystal's reputation restored"

Yeah, maybe on the 31st of June of this year.

and that of any perpetrators destroyed."

There were no perpetrators.

"That in the broadest sense would constitute justice."

You know as much about Justice as Dr Mengele knew about delivering proper Medical care.; May 19, 2017 at 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Kenny udaman; May 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger kenhyderal said...

Hopefully your re-post of one of my posts in defence of Crystal, with the appendage "right on kenhyderal" in the manner of Malek Williams, is an indication that you are in agreement. A more honest way, though, would be to say, "here's a quote from Kenhyderal which I agree with". Those who are new here might come to the conclusion that these were your words. I hope your intent is not like Williams, making mischief here. At any rate, the post provides good information for any who have based their opinion of Crystal on Duke Lacrosse Defenders

May 13, 2017 at 1:46 PM

Kenhyderal:

You are the one who has made mischief at this blog with your cowardly acts.

Malek Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996; May 21, 2017 at 12:09 PM
kenhyderal said...: You're the gutless coward. You make sport of Crystal's plight. I'll warn you once again that you will pay for this. It won't be pretty but it will be what you deserve. Your story that when you were a class mate of Crystal you went by what you call your "slave name" and you've now adopted the non-slave name of Malek Williams. Isn't Malek an Arabic name and Williams a Norman-English name. Were not these peoples providers and consumers of slave labor.; May 21, 2017 at 9:27 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "One or more of the defendants may well of been guilty of sexual assault and kidnapping and others, whom they are aware of; rape A rape which may have been aided and abetted by one or more of them. Theft of Crystal's money was a crime admitted to but never charged"

I know you reject the basic ideas of fairness in the criminal courts, but in reality there must be an identifiable defendant to put on trial. Here, there was none. Second, there has to be probable cause to believe a crime was committed by the defendant. Again, here there was none. To have a trial under such circumstances is simply to to seek injustice.

"Walt, I have said many times I am here to counter the scurrilous lies, told without true basis and, used to characterize Crystal by posters here."

Except you are the one who spreads lies, claiming that you have secret information when you don't. Claiming the law says something that it does not.

"Those who violated her will probably never be brought to justice given the elapsed time,..."

At the beginning of this fiasco, I believed Crystal. As the evidence came in, I had my doubts. But, I thought it possible that she might have been raped sometime during her escorting rounds before the lacrosse party and simply was confused. However, the evidence no longer supports that theory either.

"... but you might see Crystal's reputation restored and that of any perpetrators destroyed. That in the broadest sense would constitute justice."

Crystal destroyed her own reputation for falsely accusing three innocent men. She compounded the error by failing to apologize to them.

Walt-in-Durham; May 22, 2017 at 6:25 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt, I have no "secret" information. I have made no such claim. Any information I have I have disclosed. I am glad though to surmise you have come to the conclusion that the DNA found, unexplained by Crystal's consensual sexual history, did not come from any of the clients of Allure Escorts; May 22, 2017 at 9:02 AM
Anonymous said...: American woman gonna mess your mind
American woman, she gonna mess your mind
Mm, American woman gonna mess your mind
Mm, American woman gonna mess your mind
Say A
Say M
Say E
Say R
Say I
C
Say A
N, mm
American woman gonna mess your mind
Mm, American woman gonna mess your mind
Uh, American woman gonna mess your mind

Uh!

American woman, stay away from me
American woman, mama, let me be
Don't come a-hangin' around my door
I don't wanna see your face no more
I got more important things to do
Than spend my time growin' old with you
Now woman, I said stay away
American woman, listen what I say

American woman, get away from me
American woman, mama, let me be
Don't come a-knockin' around my door
Don't wanna see your shadow no more
Coloured lights can hypnotize
Sparkle someone else's eyes
Now woman, I said get away
American woman, listen what I say, hey

American woman, said get away
American woman, listen what I say
Don't come a-hangin' around my door
Don't wanna see your face no more
I don't need your war machines
I don't need your ghetto scenes
Coloured lights can hypnotize
Sparkle someone else's eyes
Now woman, get away from me
American woman, mama, let me be

Go, gotta get away, gotta get away
Now go go go
I'm gonna leave you, woman
Gonna leave you, woman
Bye-bye
Bye-bye
Bye-bye
Bye-bye
You're no good for me
I'm no good for you
Gonna look you right in the eye
Tell you what I'm gonna do
You know I'm gonna leave
You know I'm gonna go
You know I'm gonna leave
You know I'm gonna go, woman
I'm gonna leave ya, woman
Goodbye, American woman...; May 22, 2017 at 12:12 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 743 of 743 Newer› Newest»

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Libel lawsuit: Harr v. WRAL-5 .. Plaintiff responds

743 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me