justice4nifong: Crystal Mangum's Habeas Corpus

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Crystal Mangum's Habeas Corpus

254 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 254 of 254

desconocido said...: Por favor, Kenhyderal,
Ayudnos con este tipo sconnosciuto que no quiere soltar al gordito Kilgo!; December 29, 2017 at 6:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Where is the not at all great non entity which styles itself as the great kilgo?; December 29, 2017 at 7:51 AM
Inconnu said...: Le gros Kilgo est chez sconnosciuto, qui ne veut pas le laisser sortir.; December 29, 2017 at 8:21 AM
kenhyderal said...: Se deletrea "ayúdanos"; Trol; December 29, 2017 at 9:05 AM
desconocido said...: Entonces, nos vas a ayudar?; December 29, 2017 at 10:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Piérdete!; December 29, 2017 at 9:40 PM
desconocido said...: Kenny,
No entiendo que es lo que quieres que yo pierda.; December 30, 2017 at 6:03 AM
A Lawyer said...: I don't agree with Dr. Harr very often, but I appreciate that he keeps this blog running and doesn't censor opposing views. So let me take this opportunity to wish him (and all who post here) a happy and healthy new year.; December 30, 2017 at 7:52 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Desconocido: Mismo!; December 30, 2017 at 9:43 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ A Lawyer: I concur. I am amazed though at his forbearance in the face of vicious and often highly personal ad hominem attacks where he, inevitably,turns the other cheek. I do wish he would censor those who are here, not seriously, but simply to make mischief, those who plagiarize previous posts from other's earlier submissions, those who mock, those who chant, those who post from Google Translate in languages they do not speak etc. All these detract from this blog and should annoy those who want to see civilized debate on important questions. Those, like you, who don't agree with Dr. Harr, I believe, should also join me in denouncing those behaviours which really add nothing here.; December 30, 2017 at 10:03 AM
A Lawyer said...: Those, like you, who don't agree with Dr. Harr, I believe, should also join me in denouncing those behaviours which really add nothing here.

I don't think you ever find me engaging in those kind of behaviors. And I do denounce any racist posts I see.; December 30, 2017 at 11:56 AM
desconocido said...: Kenhyderal,
Es lo mismo! Siempre dices soquetadas, y ahora las repites. Que tristeza de ti!; December 30, 2017 at 12:07 PM
Inconnu said...: Mais, mon cher Kenhyderal, c'est toi qui essayes d'ecrire an langues que tu ne connais pas, comme par example l'espagnol.
Desconocido parle bien l'espagnol, pas toi.; December 30, 2017 at 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ A Lawyer: I concur. I am amazed though at his forbearance in the face of vicious and often highly personal ad hominem attacks where he, inevitably,turns the other cheek."

BULLSHIR!!!!! Sidney Harr has for years attacking innocent men who were falsely accused of a crime which never happened. What you call vicious ad hominem attacks are people who confront him with his guilt presuming racism. He does not turn the other cheek. He runs away from the truth because it does not mesh with his guilt presumption. That is nothing but denial and cowardice.

"I do wish he would censor those who are here, not seriously, but simply to make mischief, those who plagiarize previous posts from other's earlier submissions, those who mock, those who chant, those who post from Google Translate in languages they do not speak etc. All these detract from this blog and should annoy those who want to see civilized debate on important questions."

Like your mentor Sidney you fear the truth. That is why you dodge it, why you want it censored. The nazis tried to censor the truth. Heil Kenny.

"Those, like you, who don't agree with Dr. Harr, I believe, should also join me in denouncing those behaviours which really add nothing here."

In other words, denounce the truth.; December 30, 2017 at 12:11 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
There are no ad hominem attacks here. I doubt you even understand the term. You just think anyone who corrects you is attacking you that way.; December 30, 2017 at 12:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: Huh? Dr. A. suggesting that I am a racist and a Nazi is not an ad homenem attack? How then do you define the term?; December 31, 2017 at 9:56 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Inconnu: En Espagnol est-ce qu'on l'écrit comme ça "zoquetadas"; December 31, 2017 at 10:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Huh? Dr. A. suggesting that I am a racist and a Nazi is not an ad homenem attack? How then do you define the term?"

Your attitude as to proof Crystal was raped, which you stated, that you needed no proof that she was raped because you trusted her, that is just like the attitude of the men who believed the women who accused the Scottsboro Boys, that makes you a racist.

Your attitude that the Lacrosse players should have been convicted simply on the word o Crystal, that they should have been convicted because Crystal denounced them, that makes you the moral equivalent of the totalitarian Nazis.

You are a guilt presuming racist nazi. That is not an ad hominem a ttack but a statement of truth.

Heil Kenny.; December 31, 2017 at 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Huh? Dr. A. suggesting that I am a racist and a Nazi is not an ad homenem attack?"

I am suggesting nothing. I am coming out and stating it.

Are you saying that your attitude towards the Lacrosse players, and I repeat what you claimed on this forum, that you do not need proof Crystal was raped, is not the same kind of attitude held by the men who believed the women who falsely accused the Scottsboro boys? If you do, you are not just a racist but a deluded racist.; December 31, 2017 at 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: One more for Kenny:

Would you say a black man accused of raping a white woman should be convicted just because some man trusted the white woman. Answer yes or no without bullshitting your way around and through facts which do not mesh with your guilt presuming racism.; December 31, 2017 at 11:22 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Just for your information:
If you make a reasoned argument, based on proper logic or on well-established facts, and people refuse to consider your reasons because you are a liar, that is an ad hominem attack.
If you make a reasoned argument, based on facts that are not well established, which you claim are true because you have seen them, or because some friend of yours told you about them, and people refuse to consider your arguments because you (or your friends) have lied frequently in the past, that is not an ad hominem argument. That is an argument based on things people know.
If you make some claim that is easily shown to be false, and people tell you that you are a liar, that is not an ad hominem argument. That is simply a well-deserved rebuke.; December 31, 2017 at 11:48 AM
guiowen said...: Happy New Year to you,
Sidney, and happy new year to everyone else around here!; December 31, 2017 at 9:23 PM
Anonymous said...: and happy new year (not) to you g the evil Duke troll and hate criminal; January 1, 2018 at 6:45 AM
guiowen said...: Hey,
it's Crybully Tinfoil!; January 1, 2018 at 8:30 AM
kenhyderal said...: You are making about as much sense as Dr. Anonymous. How can people, refusing to accept my reasoned arguments because they think I'm lying constitute an ad hominem attack? How can Dr. Anonymous calling me a Nazi and a racist not be an ad hominem attack? How can you saying, "you and your friends lie frequently" not be considered an ad hominem argument. Like most Duke Lacrosse Apologists you often resort to calling anyone who does not accept the Defence's metanarrative as a liar. No, our opinions are not easily shown to be false, at least to us. I concede that it may not have been possible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Crystal was sexually assaulted but since there was no trial we can only go by the opinion of AG Cooper.; January 1, 2018 at 9:31 AM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said: "we can only go by the opinion of AG Cooper."

No, what AG Cooper did was: "When public interests are at stake, the Attorney General can take legal action on behalf of the State and its citizens." And AG Cooper did by declaring that they were innocent.

Now as a citizen of North Carolina, Sidney could try and re-open the case with the state based on new evidence that he has. But all Sidney has done at this point was an attempt to get Nifong's law license back(weak attempt) and then try to appeal Mangum's murder conviction(many failed attempts). Sidney will say he wants the sealed mental records that AG Cooper has, but that is a red herring on Sidney's part.

Opinion: "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."; January 1, 2018 at 9:59 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
You've told us sufficiently many lies in the past that we want proof of the things you and your friends say. Your reasoning may be logical, but as I'm sure you know, from a false premise anything can follow. Thus, it is logical to say that if red is blue, then we can all breathe underwater.; January 1, 2018 at 11:04 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Perhaps I shouldn't have said you've told us lies. What I should have said is that you've told us so many things that were false.; January 1, 2018 at 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"You are making about as much sense as Dr. Anonymous. How can people, refusing to accept my reasoned arguments because they think I'm lying constitute an ad hominem attack?"

Irrelevant statement as you have ever made any reasonable argumenst on this forum. So far as calling you a liar, I have pointed out,in response to claims you have made, that Nifong had the Lacrosse defendants indicted for and charged with first degree rape. I said, if you were unaware of the fact that he did you were ignorant. I f you were aware of that fact, and made the claim any way you were a liar.

"How can Dr. Anonymous calling me a Nazi and a racist not be an ad hominem attack?"

Another example of you trying to bullshit your way around and through facts which do not mesh with your guilt presuming racism. In response to challenges that you provide proof that Crystal ever told the truth, your response was you need no proof because you
trust Crystal. I cited references to the Scottsboro boys in which white men simply believed the white women who accused the Scottsboro boys of rape because they were white. Your attitude is the same as that of the Scottsboro Boys' accusers. So, like it or not, you are as racist as they are.

So far as you nazi-iric tendencies, I have pointed out that totalitarian regimes like the Nazia had no use for due process. You have no use for due process when it comes to Caucasian men who are accused by black women of rape. You attitude in the Crystal Mangum rape hoax, they should be convicted even though due process did show that no rape ever happened. So again I say, Heil Kenny.

"How can you saying, 'you and your friends lie frequently' not be considered an ad hominem argument."

I say again, you make false statements either because you are ignorant or because you lie.

"Like most Duke Lacrosse Apologists you often resort to calling anyone who does not accept the Defence's metanarrative as a liar."

There was no defense metanarrative. The only metanarrative in the case was, well off, accomplished Caucasian men like to ravage black women, something crime statistics have shown to be false.

"No, our opinions are not easily shown to be false, at least to us."

You are admitting you are deluding yourself. You have repeatedly acknowledged you can not support your claims with any evidence, so you believe in guilt presuming racist fantasies. That does not add up to any kind of reasoned opinion.

"I concede that it may not have been possible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Crystal was sexually assaulted but since there was no trial we can only go by the opinion of AG Cooper."

There was no trial because there was no evidence of a crime. You admit you can provide no evidence, that you believe a crime happened because you trust Crystal. You again delude yourself that you express reasoned opinions.; January 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Happy New Year to you,
Sidney, and happy new year to everyone else around here!

December 31, 2017 at 9:23 PM

gui, mon ami, and kenhyderal, Walt, JSwift, A Lawyer, and all other commenters, Have a great year in 2018.

This will be the year that Crystal Mangum is released from prison and exonerated. And, I'm not waiting around. Justice will take off like a rocket in January! Beginning with new sharlogs that will be posted in the next few days. Fasten your seat-belts, everyone.

As you were.; January 1, 2018 at 1:44 PM
Doogie Howser said...: Dr. Harr,

On what date are you expecting that Crystal Mangum will be released from prison?; January 1, 2018 at 1:53 PM
guiowen said...: But, Sidney,
You've been wrong so many times before! What makes you think this time will be better?; January 1, 2018 at 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"guiowen said...
Happy New Year to you,
Sidney, and happy new year to everyone else around here!

December 31, 2017 at 9:23 PM

gui, mon ami, and kenhyderal, Walt, JSwift, A Lawyer, and all other commenters, Have a great year in 2018.

This will be the year that Crystal Mangum is released from prison and exonerated. And, I'm not waiting around. Justice will take off like a rocket in January! Beginning with new sharlogs that will be posted in the next few days. Fasten your seat-belts, everyone.

As you were."

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.; January 1, 2018 at 3:10 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Perhaps I shouldn't have said you've told us lies. What I should have said is that you've told us so many things that were false."................. You really should append "in my opinion" to this declaration.; January 1, 2018 at 9:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Guiowen said: "Perhaps I shouldn't have said you've told us lies. What I should have said is that you've told us so many things that were false."................. You really should append "in my opinion" to this declaration."

Opinion nothing. You have posted false information, e.g. Nifong did not have the Lacrosse players charged with rape.

Another piece of falsehood which you try to promulgate: the innocence of the Lacrosse players' innocence is AG Cooper's opinion. They are innocent because of the FACT there was no crime. That there was a crime is merely YOUR opinion, an opinion which is not supported by any factual evidence, as you have admitted.; January 2, 2018 at 2:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Krnhyderal:

What makes this a reasonable opinion:

The not at all great non entity which styles irself as the great kilgo supposedly tells you that a Lacrosse player told him non Lacrosse attendees raped Crystal. You come up with 3 accounts of how this not at all great non entity told you, first via a post on J4N, second via email, third by both a J4N post and by email.

You have no evidence there were any non lacrosse player attendees other than the two who were identified in photos. Yet you say you believe it because it agrees with what Crystal told you. When challenged to prove the truth of what Crystal told you, you say you do not need proof because you trusted Crystal(which is like the people who wanted to convict the Scottsboro boys because they trusted the women who accused them).

That is not an opinion based on reasoned thinking. That is an opinion based on racist motivated guilt presumption.; January 2, 2018 at 5:24 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Remember how, in September 2016, you absolutely denied an exchange which you and I had in February 2015? You then claimed you couldn't be expected to remember such exchanges because of "context" -- whatever that means.; January 2, 2018 at 5:29 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny, I'm willing to believe that you just have a very poor memory. In my opinion, though, you were lying.; January 2, 2018 at 5:40 AM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Do you know that, if 1=2, then 45=38? I'll gladly give you a rigorous proof of this.; January 2, 2018 at 8:47 AM
desconocido said...: Kenhyderal,
Te has dado cuenta de lo que le ha pasado al gordito Kilgo, todo porque tu no quisiste ayudarle? Ahora su vocabulario esta reducido a una sola palabra, "spin". Que mal amigo eres!; January 2, 2018 at 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid has filed another frivolous lawsuit ... full of the same lies and misrepresentations he puts in all of his Sharlogs and other lawsuits. I wonder why he hasn't talked about it here.; January 2, 2018 at 1:49 PM
Anonymous said...: And, like all of his lawsuits, Sid (pretending to be Crystal, thinking it will save him from the State Bar) does nothing to explain why the Statute of Limitations should not apply. If this is your latest attempt at "justice" it will fail as quickly and spectacularly as your other efforts because you refuse to learn, refuse to listen, and trot out the same discredited theories and lies.; January 3, 2018 at 4:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid, tell us about this new law suit.; January 3, 2018 at 6:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Crystal is suing for malicious prosecution. She is asking for $25,000 in damages and a new trial.

The State Bar apparently is reviewing Sidney's involvement.

See link below.

http://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/crime/article192631969.html; January 3, 2018 at 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Chances are slim to none she will get any lawyer to represent her.

Kenhyderal will say she deserves her day in court. I hope she gets it. I would like her to get on the stand and testify so she can be cross examined and have to address all the inconsistencies in her false allegation of rape.

Sidney Harr again manifests what a deluded megalomaniac he is.; January 3, 2018 at 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...: It would be interesting to see how Crystal and Sidney would react if this ever got to the discovery phase. Crystal would have to submit to being deposed.; January 3, 2018 at 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: from http://www.mylawcoach.com/my_weblog/2008/03/cost-of-witness.html:

"Attorney: Before we go to trial in your lawsuit, we’re going to need to collect enough evidence to be able to prove your case to a jury. Let's talk about the best way to do that, and the cost of that."

Does Sidney realize there has to be a discovery phase before a civil suit goes to trial?Does he know the plaintiff must pay the costs of getting the evidence?

Is Kenny going to chime in with something like, Crystal is an ient plaintiff and should not have to pay ford the discovery phase.; January 3, 2018 at 12:54 PM
Anonymous said...: What is an “ient plaintiff?”; January 3, 2018 at 3:58 PM
guiowen said...: Probably means "indigent", though that's just a guess.; January 3, 2018 at 5:32 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

Part of the reason I have not been active on this blog's commentary is because I have been helping Crystal Mangum file the civil suit. Unfortunately, the article in The Herald-Sun does not venture much into Mangum's complaint and focuses on Crystal's past with the Duke Lacrosse case, and it attempts to put forth a case for the State Bar to attack me. This type of "Indy Week" ambush was not unexpected... and I anticipated it with the questions asked about the injunction being pursued more than the issues related to the malicious prosecution. So, I did not avoid the questions, but answered them straight-forward.

It had been my intention to have the brief loaded by now, but I have been busy with writing letters and preparing discs to send out. I will try to get the brief fully completed and uploaded by tomorrow sometime. But let me tell you that the lawsuit deals with the indictment of April 18, 2011. In particular, the State's sole witness before the Grand Jury, Durham Police Officer Marianne Bond, testified for the Larceny of Chose in Action counts which then maintained that Crystal Mangum had stolen or willfully taken and carried away the two cashier's checks. This contradicted Officer Bond's April 4, 2011 police report in which she interviewed Reginald Daye who told her that he gave Crystal the money orders (cashier's checks) to hold on to. Since the cashier's checks were immediately placed in Mangum's purse and never removed from it prior to her arrest, there is no way that they could have been stolen. In other words, the larceny charge was clearly in want of probable cause. She was an impeached witness. Since she was the only witness before the grand jury, her credibility regarding the murder charge is damaged and should therefore be rescinded and Ms. Mangum granted a new trial.

It is difficult to understand the true meaning of Mangum's lawsuit, because the newspaper article did not have that as its intention. Therefore, not only was the medical examiner's testimony perjured, but so was that of Police Officer Marianne Bond... the only witness before the Grand Jury.

Also, the newspaper is incorrect in stating that Ms. Mangum is seeking $25,000.00. In filing the form, a requirement for the case to be heard in Superior Court is seeking damages at $25,000.00 or greater. Because that box was checked on the filing form, the newspaper stated that she wanted "cash." (Almost without exception, people who file in civil court seek cash. The Duke Lacrosse defendants sought cash in the amount of $10 million each against the city of Durham, but the newspapers and media didn't phrase it that way. Hah!); January 3, 2018 at 6:00 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Forgot to say, the article stated Mangum filed the lawsuit against the Durham Police Department. That is incorrect. She filed it against Officer Marianne Bond. A second defendant was correctly identified by the newspaper as being the Durham District Attorney's Office.

As you were.; January 3, 2018 at 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr again shows he is seriously and megalo-maniaclly delusional.

Sidney, how are you and Crystal going to pay for the discovery process.

I hope your suit gets to the discovery process because Crystal will have to submit to being deposed and having to prove her claim she had been raped at the Lacrosse party, Her cause of action is that she was maliciously prosecuted because she had accused people of raping her. She can't. She will not get a pass on this by asserting no one proved she had lied about being raped. Her obligation will be to prove she had been raped.

And I wonder, with you acting as her advisor, whether or not you will claim compensation in the rather seriously unlikely event that a court awards her some money, like a lawyer handling a case on a contingency fee basis. You have shown a propensity to try to enrich yourself via the legal system.; January 4, 2018 at 1:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr

"Almost without exception, people who file in civil court seek cash."

I recall, after Crystal published her screed which she tried to pass off as a book, Vincent Clark had a blog up about her and her book. I commented on that blog, if Crystal had been raped why she did not file a civil suit. Clark said it was not about money. It seems Crystal has changed her attitude, maybe reverted to her attitude in the Duke Rape HOAX, that the rich white boys would be paying her.; January 4, 2018 at 1:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

More of your hypocrisy when you rant and rave about the Grand Jury.

As many posters have informed you, the larceny was never in play during the trial.

You seem to approve of Nifong's seeking of Grand Jury indictments against the Lacrosse defendants. I remind you that Crystal alleged that three members of the Lacrosse team had raped her and deposited their bodily fluids on her. The only male DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team(which IS incontrovertible evidence that Crystal DID lie). You DO presume the Lacrosse players were guilty. Had Nifong presented the Grand Jury with the NTO , which stated that the DNA results would identify the perpetrators of the alleged crime and exonerate rhe innocent, and the DNA results from DNA security, the Drand Jury would have declined to indict.

Now, maybe, like your wacko-lyte Kenny, you will claim that Nifong did not have them indicted for rape.; January 4, 2018 at 3:27 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 254 of 254 Newer› Newest»

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Crystal Mangum's Habeas Corpus

254 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me