justice4nifong: Crystal Mangum's Motion for Default and Summary Judgment

Friday, May 11, 2018

Crystal Mangum's Motion for Default and Summary Judgment

209 comments:

1 – 200 of 209 Newer› Newest»

Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
A Lawyer said...
Sid,

I’m outa here if you start screening the comments. I don’t need to have you reviewing my pompous, bombastic posts in advance, like some third rate law review editor.

Whatever troll posted that comment wasn't me. I always refer to the owner of this blog as "Dr. Harr," not "Sid." I disagree (often quite strongly) with Dr. Harr, but this is his house, and I feel he deserves that respect.

May 10, 2018 at 4:37 PM

Hey, A Lawyer.

There are many individuals, unfortunately, who choose to disrupt and obfuscate when frustrated by their inability to engage in civil and intellectual discourse on subject matter of serious content... especially when logic falls on the opposing side.

It was my intention not to post until a screening procedure was in place on this blog site, however, due to the importance of the document filed yesterday, I have elected to post it now.

Just to make it crystal clear, I value your comments as well as those of Walt, kenhyderal, JSwift, Abe, and others, so you can be assured that under any circumstances your comments would not be edited or censored. All I seek to do is make this blog site's commentary as informative and enjoyable as possible.

I thank you and other good-faith commenters for your contributions.; May 11, 2018 at 4:18 AM
A Lawyer said...: Just to make it crystal clear, I value your comments as well as those of Walt, kenhyderal, JSwift, Abe, and others, so you can be assured that under any circumstances your comments would not be edited or censored. All I seek to do is make this blog site's commentary as informative and enjoyable as possible.

Thank you. The problem is that someone else has started posting comments under the name "A Lawyer" that are not by me and are intended to discredit me. I didn't call my own posts "pompous, bombastic posts," and I don't call you "Sid." But since this troll is posting under my screen name I'm either going to have to find a better way to identify myself here, or I'll stop posting.; May 11, 2018 at 8:12 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: It appears that there's no way for me to post as "A Lawyer" without some troll stealing my name. So from now on, I'm posting as "Dr. Caligari," not my preferred name for this board, but one that apparently can't be hacked.; May 11, 2018 at 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...: A Lawyer:

We all know you don't use words like "pompous" or "bombastic" to describe your posts, or anything else. But we all know someone who posts on here who likes to use words like that. He is extremely dishonest, an inveterate, unrepentant liar, hates America and Americans, and can't stand it when anyone else uses a pseudonym.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 11, 2018 at 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

I find it interesting that you keep referencing a plea deal, which Meier, in his letter to Crystal which you posted, but then quickly removed, specifically denied ever existed. In fact, I recall he indicated that Crystal had asked for a time served plea deal, and that was rejected. Plus, 10-year probation is illegal in North Carolina (it can only go to 5 years).

If Crystal claims this plea offer actually existed, then she would have Meier directly lying in a written communication to her. If that's true, why has she not raised that issue with the Bar, or in a MAR? Could it be that you are wrong, and she knows if she raised it directly, attorney/client privilege would be waived so Meier could respond?

And, you still ignore the law of service, and everything else. Oh, and if you are just acting as a courier - how is it that Crystal's filings are all typed - they don't have access to typewriters in prison.; May 11, 2018 at 1:06 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid,

I find it interesting that you keep referencing a plea deal, which Meier, in his letter to Crystal which you posted, but then quickly removed, specifically denied ever existed. In fact, I recall he indicated that Crystal had asked for a time served plea deal, and that was rejected. Plus, 10-year probation is illegal in North Carolina (it can only go to 5 years).

If Crystal claims this plea offer actually existed, then she would have Meier directly lying in a written communication to her. If that's true, why has she not raised that issue with the Bar, or in a MAR? Could it be that you are wrong, and she knows if she raised it directly, attorney/client privilege would be waived so Meier could respond?

And, you still ignore the law of service, and everything else. Oh, and if you are just acting as a courier - how is it that Crystal's filings are all typed - they don't have access to typewriters in prison.

May 11, 2018 at 1:06 PM

Anony, I have never remove anything that I posted on this blog site. There was an incident, possibly years ago, in which I somehow managed to inadvertently delete a slew of sharlogs... which upset me terribly.

I do recall Dan Meier's letter in which he denied a plea offer made to Crystal by prosecutors, and made other outrageous statements in which he tried to turn the plea offer into one in which Crystal sought a deal.

Unfortunately, nothing was put in writing, and the discussion was made in Court in the absence of transcribers, jurors, media, and gallery... at the discretion of the trial judge, Honorable Paul Ridgeway.

I believe Mangum's account, which is the State offered her time served and a ten-year probation in exchange for guilty pleas to voluntary manslaughter and both counts of Larceny of Chose in Action.... a plea deal which Mangum says Meier encouraged her to take.

As far as MAR goes, it seems unlikely to me that one could be based on Meier's letter about a plea deal. Besides, there's no audio or written transcription of the discussion of the plea deal. Unlike the new evidence of the phone conversation between Mangum and Walker.

As far as assisting Crystal, I've made it known long ago that I provide clerical as well as courier services to Ms. Mangum. (In the past I offered to gift a laptop to the prison system so that inmates could prepare their own briefs... but the warden did not respond.); May 11, 2018 at 4:48 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
It appears that there's no way for me to post as "A Lawyer" without some troll stealing my name. So from now on, I'm posting as "Dr. Caligari," not my preferred name for this board, but one that apparently can't be hacked.

May 11, 2018 at 10:28 AM

As John McClane once said, "Welcome to the party, pal." Looking forward to your postings, Dr. Caligari.; May 11, 2018 at 4:51 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: To quote former Texas Governor Rick Perry, "Oopsie."
Actually, I meant "comments" rather than postings.; May 11, 2018 at 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Crystal Mangum is a menace to society and she should have been executed along time ago.She didn't even get punished for falsely accusing innocent young men of rape.; May 11, 2018 at 9:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Who is posting these salacious comments?; May 12, 2018 at 4:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Ken,

We are still waiting for your answer. Did William Cohan get it right?; May 12, 2018 at 5:47 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Caligari said; "So from now on, I'm posting as "Dr. Caligari," ....................."I must know everything. I must penetrate the heart of his secret! I must become Caligari!"---(Dr. Caligari's Cabinet); May 12, 2018 at 9:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal,

During your absence, Sid told us that he is considering marrying Crystal. This seems to be a very bad idea. Please consider organizing an intervention.; May 12, 2018 at 3:38 PM
kenhyderal said...: I hope he does. I think it's a wonderful idea. I can take credit for introducing them; May 12, 2018 at 8:35 PM
Dr. Caligari said...: Du musst Caligari werden!; May 12, 2018 at 9:02 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Kenhyderal,

During your absence, Sid told us that he is considering marrying Crystal. This seems to be a very bad idea. Please consider organizing an intervention.

May 12, 2018 at 3:38 PM

I have known Crystal Mangum for nearly eight years, and have spent practically once a week during the past six years visiting her during her incarceration. I have come to know her personally, and I believe that she is a wonderful person. It would be to my advantage to marry her because she is intelligent, kind, generous, beautiful, strong, with a great sense of humor... a personality that attracts people.

My major concern is the age difference, as I am thirty years her senior. If we were closer in age I would have committed sooner. But we will have to deal with the issues once she is released, and unlike her legal representation in the past, I will put her best interests first.

You probably have not met Ms. Mangum or even seen her in person. The only impressions you could possibly have would most likely be from what you read in the media. But keep in mind that in Crystal's case the media had/has an agenda. It wanted to demonize her... which it very effectively did. Had you the opportunity to meet and know Ms. Mangum, I am sure that your concern and outlook would be much different.; May 13, 2018 at 4:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Crystal Mangum is a menace to society and she should have been executed along time ago.She didn't even get punished for falsely accusing innocent young men of rape.

May 11, 2018 at 9:49 PM

Actually, the media-driven society is menace to Crystal Mangum and many other innocents (a majority being people of color). To suggest that her Duke Lacrosse accusations are false is not proven; Mangum has steadfastly maintained that she was sexually assaulted at the 2006 Duke beer-fest.

What I would like to know from you is why do you believe that the Durham District Attorney's Office defaulted in response to the Complaint for Malicious Prosecution that Mangum filed regarding the Larceny of Chose in Action indictment?; May 13, 2018 at 5:03 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 13, 2018 at 9:10 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Dr. C. 9:02 https://www.amazon.ca/Du-Musst-Caligari-Werden-Cabinet/dp/B074924XWF; May 13, 2018 at 9:18 AM
Anonymous said...: ¿Dónde está el palo de escoba?; May 13, 2018 at 10:49 AM
Anonymous said...: It was proven beyond any doubt that the lacrosse players never touched Crystal Mangum and were never in any bathroom with her.I'm sick of women getting preferential treatment when they falsely accuse innocent men of rape.They rarely suffer any punishment and sometimes they go on to commit more crimes like Mangum did.She still got a very lenient sentence of only 14 years when she should have been put to death.; May 13, 2018 at 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...: "To suggest that her Duke Lacrosse accusations are false is not proven; Mangum has steadfastly maintained that she was sexually assaulted at the 2006 Duke beer-fest."

Actually, Mangum's claims were proven to be false. That she and you would claim otherwise and maintain that she was assaulted, in the face of irrefutable, overwhelming evidence to the contrary speaks only to the poor quality of your respective characters. It is also one of the reasons no one takes anything you or Mangum say seriously.; May 14, 2018 at 12:16 PM
Anonymous said...: The above post is by me, Abe Froman. I forgot to sign it.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 14, 2018 at 12:17 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
If you want to marry Crystal, go ahead. Just be careful not to let her consume too much alcohol, or any other mind-altering drug.; May 14, 2018 at 2:00 PM
Anonymous said...: And don’t keep any knives around the house.; May 14, 2018 at 4:19 PM
kenhyderal said...: Abe said: "Overwhelming evidence to the contrary..." And what might that overwhelming evidence be Abe? Whatever evidence former DA Nifong saw, caused him to conclude otherwise. What evidence Investigative Journalist William Cohan saw, caused him to also believe otherwise. All those who actually know Crystal believe she has told the truth. Former Attorney General Cooper gave that conclusion but he would not unseal the investigation notes. Duke Lacrosse apologists, hardly objective and with a prior agenda of clearing the accused, earnestly, wrote books and blogs to support this thesis. It's become the conventional wisdom but it's hardly incontrovertible; May 14, 2018 at 4:28 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous guiowen said...
Sidney,
If you want to marry Crystal, go ahead. Just be careful not to let her consume too much alcohol, or any other mind-altering drug.

May 14, 2018 at 2:00 PM

gui, mon ami, Crystal is a nice young lady and definitely not an alcoholic or drug-abuser. I do not believe that she had any alcohol at the 2010 incident with Milton Walker, and she was not intoxicated in the Daye incident in 2011. In the 2011 incident alcohol ingestion by Mangum played no role as her actions were in self-defense with him choking her. As far as drugs go, I have never been aware of her using them.

In the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, she may have been unknowingly drugged at the party where she was offered alcoholic drinks.

Unfortunately, gui, you like so many others, myself included, had a preconceived notion about Ms. Mangum... however, after seven years of frequent weekly visits and phone conversations, I have come to know her much better than the media-types who write about her with an agenda.; May 14, 2018 at 5:58 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: To Cohan Supporter:

As you may know, I am in close relationship with Crystal Mangum, so therefore my tolerance for comments about her that are salacious or set her up for ridicule is extremely low... even if the intent of the comment is reasonable and its contents factual.

Instead of Duke Lacrosse case of 2006, I would be more interested in hearing your opinions on the Durham District Attorney's Office defaulting by not filing a response to Mangum's Malicious Prosecution lawsuit.; May 14, 2018 at 6:04 PM
Cohan Supporter said...: Nifong Supportert:

I was replying to kenhyderal in direct response to his comment that Cohan must have had evidence (which he unfortunately never disclosed) to support his conclusion that something happened to Magnum. I was also replying to kenhyderal in direct response to his claim that those who know Magnum believe she has told the truth.

The quote from Cohan's interview with Cosmopolitan provides what I believe is evidence that Cohan did not believe Mangum's allegation quoted in that interview.

If you re going to censor my response to kenhyderal, I ask that you also censor his comment to which I directly replied. He also commented on an off-topic subject. kenyhderal obviously is acting as a troll, attempting successfully to distract commenters from your blog. Similarly, kenhyderal responded to Abe's comment, which was also off topic.

If you intend to be fair, you should remove all of the off topic comments.; May 14, 2018 at 6:21 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Neither Nifong nor Cohan gave us any evidence -- other than Crystal's and Nifog's claims. We've seen how that came out.
Please stop trying to pull one over on us. You know no one believes anything you say.; May 14, 2018 at 6:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Will kenhyderal be your best man?; May 15, 2018 at 3:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr -- Why aren't you censoring Kenhyderal's off-topic comments?; May 15, 2018 at 6:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Cohan’s book was overly inclusive with details and tidbits, but he largely leaves out an important ingredient — his own analysis.

Here's an example:
During the case, it came to light that when Ms. Mangum was 17, she accused three men of gang raping her when she was 14. Cohan includes her description of the alleged incident from her book, “Last Dance for Grace” (and her description is devastating). Six months later, in December 1993, she was found to have post-traumatic stress disorder and spent two months at a psychiatric hospital. She later attempted suicide, and her medical records also mention bipolar disorder.
Cohan completely neglects to address the possible significance of Ms. Mangum’s troubled history to the lacrosse case.; May 15, 2018 at 9:26 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr -- Why aren't you censoring Kenhyderal's off-topic comments?

May 15, 2018 at 6:26 AM

I don't weed out comments because they may be off-topic... a majority of them are. I will weed out comments that are mean-spirited/cruel/salacious... especially when directed toward an individual or a group. I wish that monitoring of the comments was not necessary because I could find better use of my time.

I am unlikely to censor any comments by the regulars (kenhyderal, JSwift, Walter, A Lawyer, guiowen, and Abe) because their comments are identified and I believe they are responsible contributors to the comment section and I value their opinions.

Anonymous commenters are unknown individuals about whom I have no perception of their charaacter... so if a comment is questionable or touches the fringes of acceptable comment, by signing as anonymous their comments will have an increased chance of being deleted.

Regarding the comment by Cohan Supporter, it is possible that it did not warrant removal due to the intent of the commenter. It is possible I should have studied it more in depth before removing it. At the time I read it, it seemed to be more salacious in intent than informative. I may have been wrong in the author's intent, but by signing with a name and allowing me to know your way of thinking and a sense of your personality, I will probably be more tolerant of your future comments.; May 15, 2018 at 6:27 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Cohan Supporter said...
Nifong Supportert:

I was replying to kenhyderal in direct response to his comment that Cohan must have had evidence (which he unfortunately never disclosed) to support his conclusion that something happened to Magnum. I was also replying to kenhyderal in direct response to his claim that those who know Magnum believe she has told the truth.

The quote from Cohan's interview with Cosmopolitan provides what I believe is evidence that Cohan did not believe Mangum's allegation quoted in that interview.

If you re going to censor my response to kenhyderal, I ask that you also censor his comment to which I directly replied. He also commented on an off-topic subject. kenyhderal obviously is acting as a troll, attempting successfully to distract commenters from your blog. Similarly, kenhyderal responded to Abe's comment, which was also off topic.

If you intend to be fair, you should remove all of the off topic comments.

May 14, 2018 at 6:21 PM

Cohan Supporter, I would be interested in your views about the failure of the Durham D.A.'s Office to timely respond to Mangum's complaint about Malicious Prosecution civil lawsuit.; May 15, 2018 at 6:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Why aren't you interested in Kenny's views regarding any supposed failure of the Durham DA's office?; May 15, 2018 at 8:23 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Why aren't you interested in Kenny's views regarding any supposed failure of the Durham DA's office?

May 15, 2018 at 8:23 PM

Yesterday I filed a motion on behalf of Crystal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. Today I will write a letter and work on a long neglected two-part sharlog. What I'm trying to express is that I have little available time to respond to comments that lack significance or that are not of serious nature... especially when submitted by Anony.; May 16, 2018 at 3:58 AM
Cohan Supporter said...: Several reactions:

1. The lawsuit is frivolous. I will not repeat the reasons; this has been discussed previously.

2. I don’t understand why the DA failed to respond to a frivolous lawsuit. While it is possible that something slipped through the cracks, I assume we are missing a piece of information.

3. The filing contains a number of false or misleading statements and misstatements of law. It is difficult to take it seriously.; May 16, 2018 at 4:57 AM
FakeKenhyderal said...: Cohan Supporter -

Not 100% sure on this, but I believe a judge can review the lawsuit ("frivolity review"?) and determine if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim where relief can be granted, or seeks relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.

If the judge determines that the lawsuit meets any of this criteria, they can dismiss some or all of the claims.

Also, it's CGM's (well, Sid's really, since we all know he is the one actually preparing the documents and filing them) responsibility to file with the clerk proof of service on each defendant.

I can't tell from his document if that filing was ever done.

Finally, I'll note that this latest document incorrectly states that CGM's daughter's graduation is May 20 2017.

As Sid has previously noted, any instance of an incorrect date invalidates the entire document.; May 16, 2018 at 7:34 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: Dr. Harr,
When the State responds to your motion for default/summary judgment, will you post the response here?; May 16, 2018 at 10:50 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Cohan Supporter said...
Several reactions:

1. The lawsuit is frivolous. I will not repeat the reasons; this has been discussed previously.

2. I don’t understand why the DA failed to respond to a frivolous lawsuit. While it is possible that something slipped through the cracks, I assume we are missing a piece of information.

3. The filing contains a number of false or misleading statements and misstatements of law. It is difficult to take it seriously.

May 16, 2018 at 4:57 AM

The failure of the D.A.'s Office to file a Response to Mangum's Malicious Prosecution Complaint is simply due to the fact that it has no defense. If the State's position was defensible, then surely a Response would have been filed along with a Summary Judgment. Instead, it is Mangum who is filing the default and summary judgment.

Regarding a typo, surely that is not grounds for invalidation of the entire document, especially when it is materially not of relevance to the Complaint.; May 16, 2018 at 10:58 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
Dr. Harr,
When the State responds to your motion for default/summary judgment, will you post the response here?

May 16, 2018 at 10:50 AM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

When, and if, the State responds to Mangum's Motion for Default and Summary Judgment, I will post it. Because the State defaulted instead of timely filing a Response to the Malicious Prosecution case filed by Mangum, I doubt that it will file a Response to the recently filed Motion for Default and Summary Judgment.; May 16, 2018 at 11:03 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: FakeKenhyderal said...
Cohan Supporter -

Not 100% sure on this, but I believe a judge can review the lawsuit ("frivolity review"?) and determine if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim where relief can be granted, or seeks relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.

If the judge determines that the lawsuit meets any of this criteria, they can dismiss some or all of the claims.

Also, it's CGM's (well, Sid's really, since we all know he is the one actually preparing the documents and filing them) responsibility to file with the clerk proof of service on each defendant.

I can't tell from his document if that filing was ever done.

Finally, I'll note that this latest document incorrectly states that CGM's daughter's graduation is May 20 2017.

As Sid has previously noted, any instance of an incorrect date invalidates the entire document.

May 16, 2018 at 7:34 AM

Hey, Fake-K.

I am not a lawyer, but it is my belief that it would be highly irregular for a judge to rule on a case in favor of a defendant who defaulted by not filing a Response. It would seem to me that any adjudication by the judge, in light of a case in which there is want of a Responsive pleading by the defendant, would most assuredly favor the plaintiff in the ruling.

The bottom line is that the State's failure to file a Response is due to its inability to logically defend against the complaint of Malicious Prosecution. That's the same problem that Durham Police Officer Marianne Bond faces. Despite her legal counsel being granted an extension for time to file a Response, the odds are high that she will default, as well... failing to file a Response.; May 16, 2018 at 11:17 AM
FakeKenhyderal said...: Sid -- were these documents filed in forma pauperis ?; May 16, 2018 at 11:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

If you really believe your last post, you are delusional.; May 16, 2018 at 3:53 PM
Cohan Supporter said...: Nifong Supporter:

The false and misleading statements and misstatements of law in the filing to which I referred are not mere typos.; May 16, 2018 at 4:22 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous FakeKenhyderal said...
Sid -- were these documents filed in forma pauperis ?

May 16, 2018 at 11:55 AM

Fake-K, the Malicious Prosecution Complaint filed by Crystal Mangum was not filed in forma pauperis. A filing fee accompanied the filing.; May 16, 2018 at 5:31 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Cohan Supporter said...
Nifong Supporter:

The false and misleading statements and misstatements of law in the filing to which I referred are not mere typos.

May 16, 2018 at 4:22 PM

Hey, Cohan Supporter.

The only example you gave of any misstatement was in reference to the year in which Mangum's daughter was to graduate from high school. Although it was inadvertently and incorrectly listed as May 20, 2017 in the analysis, the graduation date was correctly listed as May 20, 2018 in the relief sought section.

If you specify what misstatements are present in Mangum's Motion, I will respond to them individually.; May 16, 2018 at 5:40 PM
Cohan Supporter said...: You are mistaken. I did NOT give that example.

I will follow up tomorrow.; May 16, 2018 at 5:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Of course, Sid, the real reason that the District Attorney's Office hasn't responded to your lawsuit is you sued a non-existent entity. You can't sue the "District Attorney's Office." They can ignore it, because you didn't do it right. Now, they may respond to just get it dismissed, or they may just ignore it. But, basic research (which you can do online and don't need access to the law library for, but you will blame that) would show you what you did wrong.

But, don't worry - you will whine about the law library access, and Kenny will whine about how the rules shouldn't apply to you.

This lawsuit will go down in flames just like all the rest.; May 17, 2018 at 4:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Of course, Sid, the real reason that the District Attorney's Office hasn't responded to your lawsuit is you sued a non-existent entity. You can't sue the "District Attorney's Office." They can ignore it, because you didn't do it right. Now, they may respond to just get it dismissed, or they may just ignore it. But, basic research (which you can do online and don't need access to the law library for, but you will blame that) would show you what you did wrong.

But, don't worry - you will whine about the law library access, and Kenny will whine about how the rules shouldn't apply to you.

This lawsuit will go down in flames just like all the rest.

May 17, 2018 at 4:45 AM

When filing and serving the complaint, it was necessary to include the Durham District Attorney's name. I'm sure the Court will get the overall gist of the complaint and take into consideration that Ms. Mangum is representing herself. Keep in mind that the North Carolina Prisoner Legal Defense abandoned her as a client.

If the State had a legitimate defense against the Malicious Prosecution complaint you can rest assured that they would have readily filed a Response and asked for a Summary Judgment. It is not to their advantage to default. Would you agree on that?; May 17, 2018 at 5:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Cohan Supporter said...
You are mistaken. I did NOT give that example.

I will follow up tomorrow.

May 16, 2018 at 5:43 PM

Hey, Cohan Supporter.

That is the only example I could find in your comment, and one in which I did truly make a mistake in typing the brief for Mangum.; May 17, 2018 at 5:43 AM
Cohan Supporter said...: You continue to be mistaken. That example was provided by Fake Kenhyderal in a comment addressed to me. Fake Kenhyderal and i are different commenters. We are not the same person. You are obviously confused.

Once again, I repeat that I did NOT provide that example.

I will not provide examples of the false and misleading statements and misstatements of law contained in your/Mangum’s fling until you have acknowledged your error.; May 17, 2018 at 6:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid, pro se individuals are treated like everyone else. The Court will not overlook the fact that she sued the wrong entity. But, you are right on schedule with your whine about how the rules should not apply to you.; May 17, 2018 at 12:15 PM
Anonymous said...: You sued the wrong entity, they aren't in default. They don't need to respond.; May 17, 2018 at 12:16 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
You sued the wrong entity, they aren't in default. They don't need to respond.

May 17, 2018 at 12:16 PM

If the Durham D.A.'s Office believes that it is the inappropriate defendant in a civil lawsuit, then it should use that defense in its response. However, if it fails to respond within the thirty-day time period, then it is in default.; May 17, 2018 at 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

You simply are wrong. If you can’t name the appropriate party and initiate the suit, why would you think the substance of your complaint is any more likely to have merit?; May 17, 2018 at 7:33 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid,

You simply are wrong. If you can’t name the appropriate party and initiate the suit, why would you think the substance of your complaint is any more likely to have merit?

May 17, 2018 at 7:33 PM

I believe that it is clear that if the Durham District Attorney's Office is named as a defendant in a civil suit, then the District Attorney, whether specifically named or not, would be the figurehead party with liability. Surely, a Complaint filed by a Pro Se plaintiff, who is further disadvantaged by incarceration, should be given latitude and not ruled upon based on a strict technicality.

Regarding the content of Mangum's Complaint, it has merit, and that is why the State will do all it can to have it dismissed.; May 18, 2018 at 6:56 AM
FakeKenhyderal said...: Sid -- I made the statement about the incorrect date in the Mangum document. You are mistaken in claiming someone else made it.; May 18, 2018 at 7:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Whatever your belief's, Sid, the wrong party was named, you the "lay adviser" knows this, and admits this. Why not just Amend your Complaint instead of whining that you should get special treatment under the law?; May 18, 2018 at 10:16 AM
Anonymous said...: He doesn't have time to amend the complaint. He promised Crystal that she would be able to attend her daughter's graduation on Sunday.; May 18, 2018 at 7:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Can you give us an example in which a law suit you filed has been successful?; May 18, 2018 at 8:33 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: FakeKenhyderal said...
Sid -- I made the statement about the incorrect date in the Mangum document. You are mistaken in claiming someone else made it.

May 18, 2018 at 7:14 AM

Hey, Fake-K.

Thanks for the rectification. It is duly noted.; May 19, 2018 at 4:14 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid,

Can you give us an example in which a law suit you filed has been successful?

May 18, 2018 at 8:33 PM

No, I cannot. But I fail to recognize the relevance of your query. What's your point?

Even though I have not been successful in the past, the experience gained even in a loss is invaluable.

Keep in mind that the Court/Justice System is not keen on Pro Se'ers prevailing in lawsuits as that diminishes the perception that only legally trained attorneys admitted to the Bar are capable of winning in a legal conflict. If Pro Se'ers were frequently successful, the masses might consider representing themselves rather than paying out mucho dinero to retain an attorney. Am I right?; May 19, 2018 at 4:23 AM
Anonymous said...: And Sid, how many unsuccessful law suits have you filed in the last twenty-five years?; May 19, 2018 at 6:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...
"And Sid, how many unsuccessful law suits have you filed in the last twenty-five years?"

May 19, 2018 at 6:28 AM

Sid will either ignore or delete your comment. He has told us that he has an extremely low tolerance for comments that are salacious or that set him up for ridicule... even if the intent of the comment is reasonable and its contents factual.; May 19, 2018 at 11:48 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: If Pro Se'ers were frequently successful, the masses might consider representing themselves rather than paying out mucho dinero to retain an attorney. Am I right?

If I could perform surgery on myself with a mirror and a steak knife, I wouldn't have to pay out mucho dinero to a doctor, right?; May 19, 2018 at 3:59 PM
Dr. Caligari said...: If the Durham D.A.'s Office believes that it is the inappropriate defendant in a civil lawsuit, then it should use that defense in its response. However, if it fails to respond within the thirty-day time period, then it is in default.

If it is not a legal entity with the capacity to be sued, then it cannot be in default. If I sued "Sidney Harr's bank book," and you didn't respond within 30 days, you would not be in default.; May 19, 2018 at 4:02 PM
A Fake Lawyer said...: Please ignore the comments by Dr. Caligari.; May 19, 2018 at 4:23 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
"And Sid, how many unsuccessful law suits have you filed in the last twenty-five years?"

May 19, 2018 at 6:28 AM

Sid will either ignore or delete your comment. He has told us that he has an extremely low tolerance for comments that are salacious or that set him up for ridicule... even if the intent of the comment is reasonable and its contents factual.

May 19, 2018 at 11:48 AM

The answer to the question is that I do not know. But, civil lawsuits should be a matter of public record, so I would imagine that if you wanted to take the time you could probably google to find out the answer. I do not have the time for such activity.

As far as my tolerance goes, it is basically without bounds, but it has become necessary for me to pull a few weeds now and then for the enjoyment and benefit of others who visit and engage in this blog site to share their views and civilly challenge the opinions of others. It was my hope that my intervention would not be necessary, but a few commenters forced my hand.; May 19, 2018 at 5:09 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
If the Durham D.A.'s Office believes that it is the inappropriate defendant in a civil lawsuit, then it should use that defense in its response. However, if it fails to respond within the thirty-day time period, then it is in default.

If it is not a legal entity with the capacity to be sued, then it cannot be in default. If I sued "Sidney Harr's bank book," and you didn't respond within 30 days, you would not be in default.

May 19, 2018 at 4:02 PM

The Durham District Attorney's Office is an entity comprised of many individuals, including the current D.A. Echols, as well as other district attorneys, and at least two assistant D.A.s who worked on the case. It was the Durham District Attorney's Office that prosecuted Ms. Mangum, not any one particular individual... in which case the Durham District Attorney is the one who should be liable legally. If the D.A. speaks for his office, surely he/she should be the target of the legal action. I still don't see a tremendous burden regarding service... but the fact that you dwell on it lets me know that you realize that Mangum's lawsuit has merit.

The example you used, Sidney Harr's Bank Book, is difficult to work with, as it is an inanimate object, whereas the Durham District Attorney's Office is a congregation of individuals... the head of which is the District Attorney.; May 19, 2018 at 5:24 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
If Pro Se'ers were frequently successful, the masses might consider representing themselves rather than paying out mucho dinero to retain an attorney. Am I right?

If I could perform surgery on myself with a mirror and a steak knife, I wouldn't have to pay out mucho dinero to a doctor, right?

May 19, 2018 at 3:59 PM

You're talking apples and avocados. First of all, the consequences of failure in a Pro Se initiated lawsuit have no bearing on one's health... just one's wallet. Performing minor surgery (lancing a superificial abscess) could possibly be done successfully without morbidity under proper circumstances, but the outcome has a direct effect on one's health, and possibly life.

Lawyers make their livelihood off of clients, and if potential clients were to begin representing themselves in large numbers, the attorneys as a profession would feel the financial pinch.; May 19, 2018 at 5:34 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
You like to quote Albert Einstein. Let me then give you a quote which has been attributed to him: "Insanity is doing the same thin g over again, and expecting to get different results."
You keep on suing everyone around, and the complain that the "powers that be" simply are not interested in helping a black mother of three, etc.
Why don't you do something different? Find a friendly lawyer, explain the situation, and help hi to run for office -- namely for district attorney. I made this suggestion several years ago, but you refused to take my advice then. We've seen how you've done. Try to do something useful!; May 19, 2018 at 10:37 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
I might add, don't take Kenhyderal's advise!; May 19, 2018 at 10:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid again continues to ignore advice. He knows the entity he sued is not the proper entity. He's been told the proper entity, but rather than do it right (and lose because he knows his lawsuit is frivolous), he continues to whine and complain that he (and Crystal) should get special treatment.

How sad is your life that you have to play the constant victim? At least when this lawsuit is tossed, Sid will blame the injustice and technicalities of the law (though they aren't that technical, and he has an easy fix). If he sued the right entity and his lawsuit was dismissed (which it would be), he'd need another excuse.

Sid has really just become a sad, pathetic, parody of himself at this point.

Sid, just file the lawsuit right, and see what happens. Stop whining for special treatment and special protections.; May 20, 2018 at 5:16 AM
A Lawyer said...: Please ignore the comments by a Fake Lawyer.; May 20, 2018 at 5:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
You like to quote Albert Einstein. Let me then give you a quote which has been attributed to him: "Insanity is doing the same thin g over again, and expecting to get different results."
You keep on suing everyone around, and the complain that the "powers that be" simply are not interested in helping a black mother of three, etc.
Why don't you do something different? Find a friendly lawyer, explain the situation, and help hi to run for office -- namely for district attorney. I made this suggestion several years ago, but you refused to take my advice then. We've seen how you've done. Try to do something useful!

May 19, 2018 at 10:37 PM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

Even Einstein gets it wrong once in a while. Several months ago, I tried to get into the apartment of a friend of mine with the key she had given to me. I turned the key and turned the doorknob, but the door would not budge. I removed the key to check it was the right one, and placed it into the slot, turned it, and again tried the doorknob. Still the door would not budge. I repeated this same action over and over again, hoping for a different outcome. Then on about the tenth time, the door opened easily.

The other thing I would say about this is that in assisting Ms. Mangum with her filing, she is not submitting the same brief on the same complaint. She has an appeal with the Federal Court in a Habeas Corpus action... she has a Complaint for Malicious Prosecution based upon the Larceny of Chose in Action indictment... and she has a Motion for Appropriate Relief based on new evidence that supports witness tampering by a Durham police officer.

Satana Deberry, an African American civil rights attorney, unseated Roger Echols in a recent primary election to become Durham County's next district attorney. She was highly endorsed by many progressive groups... the only downside being that she was a graduate of Duke University School of Law. Despite that, I asked to meet with her to discuss Crystal's case. Her response was that it would be inappropriate for her to do anything until she was installed in office. She advised me to contact her in January 2019.

Evidently, D.A.-elect Deberry believes that the propriety of not interfering with cases currently under the present district attorney outweighs the impropriety of allowing an innocent black single mother of three to sit in prison for more than seven months before she considers taking any action. I disagree with her on this point, as does the Man from Nazareth and Lady Justice.

I am not dismissive of your advice, but don't think it is practical in my circumstances. I do not know everything, especially when it comes to the law, so I appreciate your advice as well as that from kenhyeral.; May 20, 2018 at 5:49 AM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal is trolling Sid just like Break the Conspiracy did earlier.; May 20, 2018 at 5:51 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid again continues to ignore advice. He knows the entity he sued is not the proper entity. He's been told the proper entity, but rather than do it right (and lose because he knows his lawsuit is frivolous), he continues to whine and complain that he (and Crystal) should get special treatment.

How sad is your life that you have to play the constant victim? At least when this lawsuit is tossed, Sid will blame the injustice and technicalities of the law (though they aren't that technical, and he has an easy fix). If he sued the right entity and his lawsuit was dismissed (which it would be), he'd need another excuse.

Sid has really just become a sad, pathetic, parody of himself at this point.

Sid, just file the lawsuit right, and see what happens. Stop whining for special treatment and special protections.

May 20, 2018 at 5:16 AM

Anony, first of all, I am not whining, merely pointing out obvious deficiencies and prejudices in the legal system when it comes to Crystal Mangum... clearly there is a movement to disparage her at every turn in order to help perpetuate the Duke Lacrosse Myth in a #MeToo Movement era. The State and the media do not want to acknowledge that Crystal Mangum is a victim.

The identification of the defendant, be it the Durham District Attorney's Office or Durham D.A. Roger Echols, is petty, but its importance looms as the merits of Mangum's Malicious Prosecution case have been validated. The State's greatest potential strategy, which you appear to be an adherent is: If you can't attack the merits of the case, attack the procedure.; May 20, 2018 at 6:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
kenhyderal is trolling Sid just like Break the Conspiracy did earlier.

May 20, 2018 at 5:51 AM

I don't comprehend the comment. Further elucidation is required.; May 20, 2018 at 6:04 AM
Anonymous said...: he, like Break, tells you what you want to hear, not what is helpful.; May 20, 2018 at 6:54 AM
kenhyderal said...: Nifong Supporter said " I don't comprehend the comment. Further elucidation is required"................................................................... Nor do I. I have full confidence in Dr. Harr. The crux of Einstein's wisdom is the concept "SAME THING. Keep in mind the aphorism "if at first you don't succeed try, try again" and the words of George Washington "truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light"; inconsequential arcane legal niceties designed, not for the sake of justice but to insure ridiculous surfeit of American Lawyers and their extortionate compensation, notwithstanding.; May 20, 2018 at 8:29 AM
Anonymous said...: QED.; May 20, 2018 at 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Surgeons make their livelihood off of patients, and if potential patients were to begin conducting surgery on themselves in large numbers, the surgeons as a profession would feel the financial pinch.; May 20, 2018 at 8:37 AM
Anonymous said...: emergency room physicians make their livelihood off of patients, and if potential patients were to begin treating themselves in large numbers, the emergency room physicians as a profession would feel the financial pinch.; May 20, 2018 at 11:12 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal said...
Nifong Supporter said " I don't comprehend the comment. Further elucidation is required"................................................................... Nor do I. I have full confidence in Dr. Harr. The crux of Einstein's wisdom is the concept "SAME THING. Keep in mind the aphorism "if at first you don't succeed try, try again" and the words of George Washington "truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light"; inconsequential arcane legal niceties designed, not for the sake of justice but to insure ridiculous surfeit of American Lawyers and their extortionate compensation, notwithstanding.

May 20, 2018 at 8:29 AM

Hey, kenhyderal.

Thanks. Very well put. I couldn't have said it better.; May 21, 2018 at 4:19 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Surgeons make their livelihood off of patients, and if potential patients were to begin conducting surgery on themselves in large numbers, the surgeons as a profession would feel the financial pinch.

May 20, 2018 at 8:37 AM

Anonymous said...
emergency room physicians make their livelihood off of patients, and if potential patients were to begin treating themselves in large numbers, the emergency room physicians as a profession would feel the financial pinch.

May 20, 2018 at 11:12 AM

Hey, Anony.

I have no inclination to defend by debate surgeons, emergency room physicians, or the medical profession, but analogies to the legal profession are not comparable. For one thing, if an illness requiring major or minor surgery is realistically capable of being accomplished by a lay person, then he/she would most likely do it. However, the majority of surgeries require anesthesia, sterile environment, sterile instruments, monitoring, pre-operative evaluation (lab and x-rays) and, last but not least, anatomical/medical knowledge. The same can be said for injuries and/or illnesses requiring emergent medical attention. Bottom line is that the majority of medical situations requiring surgery or emergency room care cannot be treated Pro Se at home. It is different with legal issues.

Anyone with a problem involving the law, can approach it on a Pro Se basis... even something as serious as the defense of oneself in a first-degree murder case. (Something which I advised Crystal Mangum to do.) Either as plaintiff or defendant, petitioner or respondent, anyone (regardless of legal training or expertise) with paper and a writing implement (be it pen or laptop) can file a Complaint, Response, Motion, Petition, or any other document in a legal situation. In the law, sterile conditions, medication, monitoring, diagnostic equipment, etc. are not required.

In law, consequences of a deficient and/or flawed legal presentation are not subjected to physical morbidity or mortality as they are with medical issues.

The analogy of your legal and medical arguments is akin to comparing apples and avocados.

Consider yourself elucidated.; May 21, 2018 at 4:42 AM
FakeKenhyderal said...: "Anyone with a problem involving the law, can approach it on a Pro Se basis... even something as serious as the defense of oneself in a first-degree murder case."

Abraham Lincoln had it right - “He who represents himself has a fool for a client”; May 21, 2018 at 6:07 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous FakeKenhyderal said...
"Anyone with a problem involving the law, can approach it on a Pro Se basis... even something as serious as the defense of oneself in a first-degree murder case."

Abraham Lincoln had it right - “He who represents himself has a fool for a client”

May 21, 2018 at 6:07 AM

Hey, Fake-K.

It was apparently clear that Mangum's pre-trial attorneys had Duke University Hospital's best interests ahead of Crystal's because they refused to seriously meet with me or consider a defense based on cause of death and medical issues. That was obvious, and confirmed by a lackluster defense by Daniel Meier in which he allowed three jurors to be seated with close ties to Duke University Hospital, and a fourth obviously biased juror to be seated without any opposition. Meier's jury selection assured that Mangum would not be acquitted. Had Mangum represented herself, she would have at least been likely to pick a jury without anyone related to Duke University and/or its hospital.

As far as post-conviction goes, her appellate defense attorney undermined her appeals process by focusing on a single weak issue that was destined to fail, and ignoring the plethora of powerful issue that contributed to an unfair judicial process. Mangum tried unsuccessfully to obtain legal representation from the private sector, from innocence commissions, from civil rights organizations, and more, but they all refused. The North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services agency, which was supposed to represent Mangum, abandoned her and sent her a brochure and other documents on how to represent herself Pro Se.

In representing herself Pro Se, both pre-trial and post-conviction, Mangum had no other reasonable alternative.

If further edification is required, let me know.; May 21, 2018 at 6:24 AM
FakeKenhyderal said...: "It was apparently clear that Mangum's pre-trial attorneys had Duke University Hospital's best interests ahead of Crystal's because they refused to seriously meet with me..."

Weren't you the guy that published documents that gave away important information to the prosecution on this very website?

Mangum's attorney's were wise in their decision to exclude you -- had she followed their advice instead of yours, I'm positive the end result would have been more in her favor.

You d*cked up any chance she had then, and you're d*cking up any chance she has now.

Why is that?; May 21, 2018 at 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: In commemoration of the 8th anniversary of Sid's Review and Critique of "www.DukeCheck.com" April 6, 2012 blog, I'll post this little comment from Sid:

"Biased blogging is banned, not biased comments. Therefore, all comments, biased or not, are welcomed and will be posted."

Face it Sid - You're a liar and a hypocrite.; May 21, 2018 at 12:01 PM
Anonymous said...: My vote for best conversation from the Blog entry identified above:

Anonymous @ May 28, 2012 at 2:37 PM:

"Ken, you have raised the lack of investigation by the DPD as "evidence" that Crystal was raped.

You have not adequately answered the questions I raised on the last thread.

I repeat them for your convenience here (with a few questions added). I ask you for individual answers to each question.

Ken, why did the DPD not conduct a bona fide investigation of one of the highest profile cases in Durham's history?

Ken, why did the DPD not interview Jason Bissey when they picked up his statement?

Ken, why did the DPD not interview other neighbors?

Ken, why did the DPD not interview Dr. Manly, the doctor who performed the partially completed SANE exam?

Ken, why did the DPD not interview other medical professionals at DUMC other than Levicy?

Ken, why did the DPD not interview the outcry witness at Durham Access until June?

Ken, why did the DPD not interview the Kroger guard until December?

Ken, why did the DPD not ask Kim to make identifications of Crystal's alleged attackers, particularly after Crystal had failed to make identifications?

Ken why did the DPD not ask Kim to make identifications after Crystal alleged in her written statement that six players had separated them just before the sexual attack?

Ken, why did the DPD not pursue the other three players?

Ken, why was the investigation essentially limited to taking one of Mangum's numerous versions of her complaint and merely selecting defendants?

Ken, why did Gottlieb's and Himan's supervisors not supervise their activities in one of the highest profile cases in Durham's history, particularly after many of the flaws in the investigation were highlighted in media coverage?

Ken, why did the DPD not ask Mangum any questions about the allegations in her written statement that were transparently false?

Ken, why did Nifong not insist that the DPD conduct a bona fide investigation?

Ken, why did Nifong not interview Mangum about her allegations?

Ken, does the word "frame" accurately describe a prosecution in which the police failed to conduct a bona fide investigation and there was nothing other than fatally flawed identifications to link the accused to the alleged crime?

May 28, 2012 at 3:12 PM
kenhyderal said:
"Anonymous @ 2:17 said: 'Ken, why did the DPD not ask Mangum any questions about the allegations in her written statement that were transparently false' Other then this query, which I find contains a false premise, I find all of your questions valid and the answer to them inexplicable..."; May 21, 2018 at 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...: While digging around, I also came across this gem:

Lance the Intern @June 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM said:

Sid -- You know what you call an "expert" without experience or credentials?

An amateur; May 21, 2018 at 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...: I miss Lance...

February 3, 2012 at 10:58 AM:
Sid says:
"Republicans should be grateful that I'm not in politics."

Lance responds:
"Trust me when I say that it's more than just republicans that are glad you're not in politics.

Based on your commits[sic] regarding Mr. Daye and his death, there's undoubtedly quite a few that are glad you no longer practice medicine, too."; May 21, 2018 at 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...: From August 15, 2012 at 7:35 AM....
Sid says:
"Prosecutors and Durham Police need to be held accountable as to why they refused to arrest Reginald Daye and charge him with domestic violence, assault on a female, and false imprisonment, especially in lieu of the fact that Daye was intoxicated and an alcoholic"

Lance responds:
"I know why they refuse to arrest Reginald Daye and charge him....he's dead."; May 21, 2018 at 1:19 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney said
"Satana Deberry ... advised me to contact her in January 2019."

So we'll be waiting for another 8 months to ear anything new about this case?; May 22, 2018 at 9:03 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
From August 15, 2012 at 7:35 AM....
Sid says:
"Prosecutors and Durham Police need to be held accountable as to why they refused to arrest Reginald Daye and charge him with domestic violence, assault on a female, and false imprisonment, especially in lieu of the fact that Daye was intoxicated and an alcoholic"

Lance responds:
"I know why they refuse to arrest Reginald Daye and charge him....he's dead."

May 21, 2018 at 1:19 PM

Reginald Daye was alive and conscious for more than three days following the assault... plenty of time in which to charge him with assault, assault on a female, and false imprisonment. They did not charge Daye with a crime because they had no intention of charging him with a crime because his victim was Crystal Mangum.

Consider yourself elucidated.; May 22, 2018 at 4:40 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...

Sidney said
"Satana Deberry ... advised me to contact her in January 2019."

So we'll be waiting for another 8 months to ear anything new about this case?

May 22, 2018 at 9:03 AM

gui, mon ami, it is my hope that the Durham District Attorney-elect will listen to evidence in the case long before then and act morally and conscientiously. Would the Man from Nazareth remain silent and idle and allow an innocent person to remain in jail for eight months for the sake of being appropriate? I don't think so.; May 22, 2018 at 4:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

As I recall, after the stabbing Mangum fled the scene and tried to hide from the cops. That's not how a crime victim typically acts. To the contrary, it indicates consciousness of guilt.

When she finally turned herself in, she refused to speak to or cooperate with the police. To the best of my knowledge, she did not accuse Mr. Daye of assaulting her or committing any crime against her. She did not attempt to file a complaint or seek to have charges filed against Mr. Daye. She did not offer any defense, excuse or justification for stabbing Mr. Daye. She suffered no apparent injuries. On what basis could the police have possibly filed charges against Mr. Daye?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 22, 2018 at 7:42 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
So, are you saying that Satana is not Christ-like? What do you think her interest is here?; May 22, 2018 at 8:11 PM
Anonymous said...: If her name is any indication, no....Probably not Christ-like.; May 22, 2018 at 8:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh, Sid... Surely with all your legal knowledge, you know that *someone* would have to come to court and testify that they witnessed Reginald Days commit those crimes before he could be charged.

Did that ever happen?; May 22, 2018 at 8:39 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Oh, Sid... Surely with all your legal knowledge, you know that *someone* would have to come to court and testify that they witnessed Reginald Days commit those crimes before he could be charged.

Did that ever happen?

May 22, 2018 at 8:39 PM

Anony, there have been cases in North Carolina where a man or boyfriend shoved a woman and was arrested and charged with assault on a female. The incident was not witnessed by any third party or videocam.

In Daye's case, Mangum had swelling to her face, excoriation/puncture wounds to her face, clumps of her hair on the floor, and evidence of a busted bathroom door frame from its jamb. Plus, he was clearly intoxicated. There was more than enough evidence to file criminal domestic violence and assault on a female charges against Mr. Daye.

Let me know if further clarification is required and I will attempt to make it crystal clear.; May 23, 2018 at 3:07 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
So, are you saying that Satana is not Christ-like? What do you think her interest is here?

May 22, 2018 at 8:11 PM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

Can you say "alma mater?" Were you aware that Satana Deberry is a graduate of Duke University School of Law? Need I say more?

As far as "Christ-like" goes, there are few people who consistently or with frequency exhibit Christ-like actions in situations of major personal conflict. Mike Nifong was Christ-like when he prosecuted the three Duke Lacrosse defendants to the best of his ability. Greg Taylor was Christ-like when he refused to accept a plea deal that would spare him a lengthy sentence at the expense of putting an innocent black man in prison.

What I am saying is that Ms. Deberry did not exhibit Christ-like behavior by her decision to put off any involvement with Crystal Mangum's case. She exhibited "human-like" behavior... which is often driven by fear, incentive, or both.

The Man from Nazareth would not have hesitated to look into a case wherein there existed the possibility that an innocent was incarcerated... especially in a vindictive prosecution based on racial prejudice.; May 23, 2018 at 3:16 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid:

As I recall, after the stabbing Mangum fled the scene and tried to hide from the cops. That's not how a crime victim typically acts. To the contrary, it indicates consciousness of guilt.

When she finally turned herself in, she refused to speak to or cooperate with the police. To the best of my knowledge, she did not accuse Mr. Daye of assaulting her or committing any crime against her. She did not attempt to file a complaint or seek to have charges filed against Mr. Daye. She did not offer any defense, excuse or justification for stabbing Mr. Daye. She suffered no apparent injuries. On what basis could the police have possibly filed charges against Mr. Daye?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

May 22, 2018 at 7:42 PM

Hey, Abe.

After the stabbing, Mangum fled the scene to get away from Daye. She would have gladly ran towards a cop had one been in the parking lot at the time. Furthermore, she had her son call 9-1-1 to report the incident.

Keep in mind that Crystal Mangum is not a typical victim. She is aware that the State is hostile towards her because of her role in the Duke Lacrosse case... and she rightfully so is concerned about not being treated fairly. An example is the 2010 incident in which she gave her sister's first name as her own because she didn't want police officers to be aware that she was the Duke Lacrosse accuser out of fear she would receive unreasonably harsh treatment because of it.

As far as her initial interaction with the police, when they arrived at the home where she was staying she was immediately placed in handcuffs and taken to the police station. The police did not first question her about what happened, they placed her under arrest. In other words, there was no investigation conducted... Mangum was arrested on the word of an intoxicated alcoholic. Mangum did try to relate her version of what took place before she was read her Miranda Rights and told that anything she said could be used in a court of law against her. So she didn't say anything.

The basis for Mangum stabbing Daye was the fact that he was choking her with his hands... as she testified at trial. Had the officers approached her in an investigative instead of apprehension mode, she would have expressed it.; May 23, 2018 at 3:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

Late yesterday afternoon, the Durham City Attorney representing Durham Police Officer Marianne Bond in Mangum's Malicious Prosecution lawsuit, filed (on the day following the deadline extension) a Response to the Complaint. I have not seen it yet, but after viewing it, I will prepare it for posting on this site.

Also, in checking on the MAR filed on April 26, 2018 based on new evidence and seeking preservation and copies of the phone call between Mangum and Milton Walker, as of yesterday there has been no action taken by senior resident Judge Orlando Hudson.

As you were.; May 23, 2018 at 3:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid, a few things:

1. Daye was in the hospital. The police tend to wait until someone is ready to be discharged before arresting (because as soon as they arrest, they are on the hook for medical expenses), so had he not died, they may have charged him. A delay with a hospitalized suspect is not unusual.

2. You've been told how to preserve the phone call - a letter needs to be sent directly to the Prison. I'm sure you haven't done this - which means that call will not be preserved. It is not proper to bury it in a MAR. You've been told this - the fact you ignore it is not a conspiracy by the state, it's an intentional act on your part, and will result in the destruction of the phone call.

3. You still need to investigate the MAR. You need to interview Milton. You keep wanting everyone else to do your work for you. That's simply not how it works. Again, you've been told this.

4. A major part of the response from Bond will be Statute of Limitations, I am sure. You keep filing lawsuits well past the statute of limitations, and never explain why it should not apply to you (Crystal) when it literally applies to everyone else. You keep wanting special treatment. You aren't special.

The reason you fail so often is you refuse to take advice and refuse to listen. That's on you, not a Duke conspiracy, not bias, not racism. It's all on you.

Consider yourself elucidated.; May 23, 2018 at 4:44 AM
Anonymous said...: "Anony, there have been cases in North Carolina where a man or boyfriend shoved a woman and was arrested and charged with assault on a female. The incident was not witnessed by any third party or videocam."

No, Sid, there hasn't. I can definitely tell you that no man has been arrested or charged for assault for shoving another person without *someone* going to court and pressing charges (like the girlfriend).

You really are worthless....If Kenhyderal were truly CGM's friend, he would strongly encourage her to tell you to stop with your "legal assistance".; May 23, 2018 at 6:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney stated: Mike Nifong was Christ-like when he prosecuted the three Duke Lacrosse defendants to the best of his ability.

Sidney, does the word "frame" accurately describe a prosecution in which the police failed to conduct a bona fide investigation and there was nothing other than fatally flawed identifications to link the accused to the alleged crime?; May 23, 2018 at 6:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "....If Kenhyderal were truly CGM's friend, he would strongly encourage her to tell you to stop with your "legal assistance".............................Dr. Harr's advocacy for Crystal and his tireless efforts on her behalf, to correct this monstrous miscarriage of justice, have been immeasurable. Where love, there hope is also.; May 23, 2018 at 8:51 AM
Anonymous said...: "Where love, there hope is also." Yeah Kenny we know --

Here's on for you:

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”; May 23, 2018 at 9:55 AM
Anonymous said...: To Anony 9:55,
Do you actually think Kenny is sincere?; May 23, 2018 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: No -- Kenny's a troll.

This better describes Sid.; May 23, 2018 at 1:43 PM
kenhyderal said...: "It is unfortunate that for some, kindness is an unwarranted expenditure, compassion an avoidable weakness, and love an unnecessary gamble.” Wayne Gerard Trotman; May 23, 2018 at 3:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Troll on, kenny.; May 23, 2018 at 3:51 PM
guiowen said...: As usual, Kenny shows us how good he is at cutting and pasting.; May 23, 2018 at 4:53 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal said...
Anonymous said: "....If Kenhyderal were truly CGM's friend, he would strongly encourage her to tell you to stop with your "legal assistance".............................Dr. Harr's advocacy for Crystal and his tireless efforts on her behalf, to correct this monstrous miscarriage of justice, have been immeasurable. Where love, there hope is also.

May 23, 2018 at 8:51 AM

Thanks, kenhyderal.; May 23, 2018 at 5:20 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sidney stated: Mike Nifong was Christ-like when he prosecuted the three Duke Lacrosse defendants to the best of his ability.

Sidney, does the word "frame" accurately describe a prosecution in which the police failed to conduct a bona fide investigation and there was nothing other than fatally flawed identifications to link the accused to the alleged crime?

May 23, 2018 at 6:13 AM

No. I believe the Durham Police investigated as best it could under the circumstances. Keep in mind that the witnesses at the beer-guzzling/stripper-ogling party were mostly male members of the Duke Lacrosse team... intoxicated... and known for their reputation for crude and reprehensible behavior. The investigation was in large measure limited by the witnesses, and they were very quickly gathered under the protective cloak of high-powered attorneys. This, unlike the murder case against Crystal Mangum, was not a vindictive prosecution.; May 23, 2018 at 5:27 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree with Kenny. Sidney's advocacy for Crystal and his tireless efforts on her behalf have indeed been immeasurable--they are incapable of being measured.

I agree with Kenny that Crystal is best served through virtue signaling; measurable results, such as an early release from prison and/or exoneration, are unimportant. The lack of measurable results is not how Sidney's efforts should be judged. Sidney's efforts, while horrendously ineffective, have been unremitting. Constant futile activity on behalf of a cause is the epitome of virtue signaling. Sidney thus has served Crystal well.

With Kenny's complete support, Sidney has been most incompetent with his complete lack of legal analysis. In his many legal filings on Crystal's behalf, he has continued to avoid any meaningful discussion of the critical legal question raised by this case--whether the esophageal intubation was an intervening cause and thus broke the chain of criminal responsibility for Daye's death. Sidney merely states his conclusion of the law (the intubation was an intervening cause and Crystal has no legal liability), and provides no case law in support of his conclusion.

When opposing counsel cites case law to support a contradictory conclusion, Sidney ignores these arguments; he makes no attempt to respond and merely repeats his opinion. When the court reaches a decision and cites case law to support a contradictory conclusion, in his appeals, Sidney ignores these arguments; he makes no attempt to respond and merely repeats his opinion.I agree with Kenny in fully supporting this lack of legal analysis as a noble stand against the arcane rules of the system.

Sidney notes that because he is not a lawyer and has no legal training, he is not permitted to use the law library most convenient for him. As a matter of principle, he refuses to use internet sources or other less convenient law libraries to conduct any research. Despite his unsurpassed Google search skills, Kenny refuses to offer any assistance. I agree with Kenny in applauding this principled, but ineffectual, stand.

Crystal may have resigned herself to a long prison term. However, she can be proud that her case has inspired Sidney's tireless efforts. These efforts represent virtue signaling at its finest. Kenny is absolutely correct--we should all applaud Sidney's efforts for what they are.; May 23, 2018 at 5:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney stated: I believe the Durham Police investigated as best it could under the circumstances.

If so, then why did the Durham Police fail to interview many non-player witnesses on a timely basis and why did they make no attempt to reconcile conflicting accounts from witnesses they did interview (e.g, Crystal an Kim)? Why did they adopt a process for identifications that likely would have resulted in the identifications being inadmissible in court?

Perhaps you can address questions related to the investigation reprinted above.; May 23, 2018 at 5:44 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
"Anony, there have been cases in North Carolina where a man or boyfriend shoved a woman and was arrested and charged with assault on a female. The incident was not witnessed by any third party or videocam."

No, Sid, there hasn't. I can definitely tell you that no man has been arrested or charged for assault for shoving another person without *someone* going to court and pressing charges (like the girlfriend).

You really are worthless....If Kenhyderal were truly CGM's friend, he would strongly encourage her to tell you to stop with your "legal assistance".

May 23, 2018 at 6:03 AM

The point I was attempting to make is that police have arrested men for assault on a female for actions far less violent and physical than the terror Daye placed on Mangum.

Unfortunately, Crystal's professional legal assistance undermined and sold her out... with the NC Prisoner Legal Services abandoning her. Her professional legal assistance was lacking when it came to filing documents with the court or conducting investigations on her behalf. Not only that, but they received payment to betray her.; May 23, 2018 at 5:47 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid, a few things:

1. Daye was in the hospital. The police tend to wait until someone is ready to be discharged before arresting (because as soon as they arrest, they are on the hook for medical expenses), so had he not died, they may have charged him. A delay with a hospitalized suspect is not unusual.

2. You've been told how to preserve the phone call - a letter needs to be sent directly to the Prison. I'm sure you haven't done this - which means that call will not be preserved. It is not proper to bury it in a MAR. You've been told this - the fact you ignore it is not a conspiracy by the state, it's an intentional act on your part, and will result in the destruction of the phone call.

3. You still need to investigate the MAR. You need to interview Milton. You keep wanting everyone else to do your work for you. That's simply not how it works. Again, you've been told this.

4. A major part of the response from Bond will be Statute of Limitations, I am sure. You keep filing lawsuits well past the statute of limitations, and never explain why it should not apply to you (Crystal) when it literally applies to everyone else. You keep wanting special treatment. You aren't special.

The reason you fail so often is you refuse to take advice and refuse to listen. That's on you, not a Duke conspiracy, not bias, not racism. It's all on you.

Consider yourself elucidated.

May 23, 2018 at 4:44 AM

Anony, 1. doesn't make sense to me. If a person commits a crime, the police usually charge and then take to the medical facility for treatment.

I will look into 2.

I don't agree with you on 3.

4. is a reflection on Mangum's attorneys during the period of time before the Statute of Limitation took effect. The question I ask you is why did they not timely file?; May 23, 2018 at 6:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Bahahahahahaha

Bahahahahahaha

Bahahahahahaha

Bahahahahahaha

Bahahahahahaha; May 24, 2018 at 3:27 AM
Anonymous said...: "If a person commits a crime..."

Who charged Reginald Daye with a crime? The police didn't see him commit a crime, so how are they going to charge him with anything?

And wasn't Reginald Daye already in the hospital by the time the police had found CGM?

Didn't the paramedics who checked her out after her arrest find no evidence that she had been beaten or choked?

Sorry, Sid you arguments are based on false premises.

You were a Doctor (apparently)...I'm sure you've heard of "Persecutory delusion" and "querulous paranoia". You should really have yourself checked out.; May 24, 2018 at 8:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

In response to #4 ... you have filed a civil lawsuit. Even ignoring that the lawsuit is frivolous and will fail so no lawyer would file it, her other attorneys were focused on her criminal case. Criminal defense attorneys, appellate attorneys, post-conviction attorneys, do no file civil lawsuits for their clients.

So, why didn't they timely file it:
1. It's frivolous, so they wouldn't file it.
2. It's well outside the scope of their representation for her criminal case.

Consider yourself elucidated, again (not that you ever learn, as evidenced by your response to #1 and #2 - they often wait until after medical treatment before charging so they don't have to pay for the treatment, and the need to send a letter to the prison has been mentioned repeatedly - you didn't look into it then, you won't look into it now - you want the recording destroyed so you can cry conspiracy).; May 24, 2018 at 12:12 PM
guiowen said...: Don't worry, come January, Sidney will have some news for us.; May 24, 2018 at 8:01 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid,

In response to #4 ... you have filed a civil lawsuit. Even ignoring that the lawsuit is frivolous and will fail so no lawyer would file it, her other attorneys were focused on her criminal case. Criminal defense attorneys, appellate attorneys, post-conviction attorneys, do no file civil lawsuits for their clients.

So, why didn't they timely file it:
1. It's frivolous, so they wouldn't file it.
2. It's well outside the scope of their representation for her criminal case.

Consider yourself elucidated, again (not that you ever learn, as evidenced by your response to #1 and #2 - they often wait until after medical treatment before charging so they don't have to pay for the treatment, and the need to send a letter to the prison has been mentioned repeatedly - you didn't look into it then, you won't look into it now - you want the recording destroyed so you can cry conspiracy).

May 24, 2018 at 12:12 PM

Regarding the phone conversations of inmates, I called the correctional institution yesterday, and as expected, I was told that they were not for public use and that I could not receive a copy or transcription. Ergo, there is nothing I can do about it.

If anything, the Durham Senior Resident Judge is delaying action on the phone call as there's been no order issued related to the motion Mangum filed.

Regarding the civil lawsuit, it is most definitely not frivolous. The charge is based upon a lack of probable cause. Clearly, Daye, in his interview with Officer Bond, stated that he gave both cashier's checks to Mangum. Even Officer Bond, on the witness stand, repeatedly acknowledged that Daye gave the two cashier's checks to Mangum. Where is the evidence that Mangum stole and illegally took and carried away the cashier's checks? Provide that evidence or name a witness to that alleged crime for which she was indicted.

Just claiming that a lawsuit is frivolous without substantiation will not suffice.

Comprende?; May 25, 2018 at 4:14 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
"If a person commits a crime..."

Who charged Reginald Daye with a crime? The police didn't see him commit a crime, so how are they going to charge him with anything?

And wasn't Reginald Daye already in the hospital by the time the police had found CGM?

Didn't the paramedics who checked her out after her arrest find no evidence that she had been beaten or choked?

Sorry, Sid you arguments are based on false premises.

You were a Doctor (apparently)...I'm sure you've heard of "Persecutory delusion" and "querulous paranoia". You should really have yourself checked out.

May 24, 2018 at 8:05 AM

Just because a police officer doesn't witness a crime doesn't mean he/she cannot charge someone with that crime. According to your hypothesis, since police didn't see Crystal stab
Daye, they shouldn't be able to charge her with assault... Right?

Also, many victims of physical abuse don't have visual signs of their assault. But that absence has not prevented authorities from charging and prosecuting the alleged assailants. Am I right?; May 25, 2018 at 4:22 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; May 25, 2018 at 7:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Deleted comment was in violation of kenhyderal doctrine against profanity.; May 25, 2018 at 7:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Truth hurts, Sid, so you delete it.

Asshole.; May 25, 2018 at 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney alleged: Deleted comment was in violation of kenhyderal doctrine against profanity.

Sidney Harr is a liar. The statement contained no profanity.; May 25, 2018 at 9:27 AM
The Broomstick Man said...: You need to provide proof, if you are going to call Dr. Harr a liar.; May 25, 2018 at 7:35 PM
Anonymous said...: This blog is garbage...
"According to your hypothesis, since police didn't see Crystal stab
Daye, they shouldn't be able to charge her with assault... Right?"

Well obviously not, because that's not what the comment stated.; May 25, 2018 at 10:16 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
This blog is garbage...
"According to your hypothesis, since police didn't see Crystal stab
Daye, they shouldn't be able to charge her with assault... Right?"

Well obviously not, because that's not what the comment stated.

May 25, 2018 at 10:16 PM

Clearly my comment was made as a facetious analogy to the May 24 comment about Daye that read: "The police didn't see him commit a crime, so how are they going to charge him with anything?"

My question for you is: Do you believe that Daye committed a crime against Mangum? (Consider swollen side of head, puncture wounds to face, clumps of her hair on the floor, and busted down bathroom door.); May 26, 2018 at 4:53 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: The Broomstick Man said...
You need to provide proof, if you are going to call Dr. Harr a liar.

May 25, 2018 at 7:35 PM

Broomstick Man, welcome to the party, pal.

Hope that you're going to help sweep away some of the falsehoods and misleading statements in this comment section.; May 26, 2018 at 4:56 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Truth hurts, Sid, so you delete it.

Asshole.

May 25, 2018 at 8:54 AM

My initial reaction was to delete this comment for it's a-word profanity, which I assume is directed to me and not a tag for the commenter. But I will let it stand to exemplify what is not wanted. I have no problem with your sentence, but the profanity added nothing constructive and certainly did not enhance enjoyment by commenters and visitors to this site.

The comment to which you refer had a profanity directed at another commenter, which is no longer to be tolerated under the kenhyderal doctrine. Profane and debased comments directed solely at me are more likely to be allowed depending on my mood. More likely to be allowed to commenters who post comments using a handle or their name.

In my opinion, there is really no place for profane and personal attacks in civil discourse. There are many commenters with whom I disagree, and who disagree with me (Walt, JSwift, A Lawyer, Abe, gui, and Fake-K, to name a few), but we do not stoop to employing profanity and cruel personal attacks against one another. I respect them and their serious (though flawed) opinions. I welcome their opinions as it gives value to the blog site and its discussions.

In direct response to your statement, I relish the truth. I love the truth. I deal in the truth. My blog site provides readers with the truths about Crystal Mangum's murder case that the media has been keeping hid from the public for more than seven years.

Bottom line is that I aspire to provide a forum where discussions on the serious topics of injustice/racism can be held in a civil and respectful manner. In such an arena of civility there is no allowance for profanity.; May 26, 2018 at 5:14 AM
The Broomstick Man said...: Thanks, Dr. Harr. Rest assured that I will put the broomstick to good use.; May 26, 2018 at 5:33 AM
Anonymous said...: No, Reginald Days did not commit a crime. The "wounds" you describe did not exist- the paramedics found no evidence of abuse, and a busted bathroom door is not a crime against CGM.; May 26, 2018 at 7:27 AM
Anonymous said...: ¿Dónde está el palo de escoba?; May 26, 2018 at 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: You viewed that response yet?; May 26, 2018 at 5:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Daye admitted to a crime - kicking in the door and dragging her out by her hair is assault. Again, despite what Sid says, it is not uncommon for the police to wait to charge someone who is in the hospital. They aren't going anywhere, and the City/County would rather not be on the hook for medical bills, which they are if the person is in custody. Whether or not they would have charged him had he lived we will never know, because he did not.; May 27, 2018 at 6:42 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Daye admitted to a crime - kicking in the door and dragging her out by her hair is assault. Again, despite what Sid says, it is not uncommon for the police to wait to charge someone who is in the hospital. They aren't going anywhere, and the City/County would rather not be on the hook for medical bills, which they are if the person is in custody. Whether or not they would have charged him had he lived we will never know, because he did not.

May 27, 2018 at 6:42 AM

Your explanation about the delay in charging a crime does carry a hint of logic, and may very well be the practice of the police department. Is this a deduction on your part, or do you know whether this is actually a protocol with Durham Police? Thanks for the enlightenment, anyway.

If it is a money-saving policy by the City/County I think it stinks. In other words, let the victim, or in this case the victim/perpetrator pay for their healthcare instead of the government. Who can better absorb the costs of hospital treatment? Besides, if a person has been suspected of a crime, he should, in my humble opinion, be placed under arrest immediately rather than awaiting for the most monetary opportunity to present itself before charging.; May 28, 2018 at 4:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
You viewed that response yet?

May 26, 2018 at 5:42 PM

Yes, I did. It is six pages, and, the defense is extremely weak. It doesn't contradict lack of probable cause and it doesn't present evidence in support of probable cause. It can't because it none exists. Instead, the defense attorneys try to get around by using procedural technicalities... the 39-page document was too long... didn't follow format by failure to number paragraphs... statute of limitations expired.

I would post it now, but have other priorities, such as completing a sharlog I began months ago and never finished... plus, have a second sharlog that is incomplete. That along with other issues (including the filing of a libel lawsuit against WRAL-5) have kept me busy.; May 28, 2018 at 4:10 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous The Broomstick Man said...
Thanks, Dr. Harr. Rest assured that I will put the broomstick to good use.

May 26, 2018 at 5:33 AM

Thanks, B-Man. Can always use an ally.; May 28, 2018 at 4:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid on May 23rd:
"I have not seen it yet, but after viewing it, I will prepare it for posting on this site.

Sid on May 28th
"I would post it now, but have other priorities, such as completing a sharlog I began months ago and never finished... "

So, you lied to us on May 23rd is what you're saying. Typical.; May 28, 2018 at 7:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Lol....Filing a lawsuit after the statute of limitations has expired is a reflection of the poor legal skills of you and (presumably) CGM.; May 28, 2018 at 7:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney criticizes the response filed by Bond: It doesn't contradict lack of probable cause and it doesn't present evidence in support of probable cause.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of these filings despite the fact that the purpose of these filings has been discussed repeatedly on this website.

A response in a case like this is not supposed to challenge alleged facts. The purpose of these filings is not to determine the facts (the jury is the trier of facts in the legal system). Bond did not challenge the alleged facts because her filing is not supposed to do so.

The purpose of these filings is to determine whether the plaintiff has a valid claim, presuming for this purpose that all of the facts are true as alleged.

Bond's filing addressed the law because that is what the filing is supposed to do. Your filings consistently are dismissed without a trial because you consistently "forget" to include what is supposed to be your focus--the legal issues at hand.; May 28, 2018 at 9:40 AM
Anonymous said...: IIRC, CGM (well, you) had 3 years to file a malicious prosecution complaint. Why wait so long?; May 28, 2018 at 1:15 PM
The Broomstick Man said...: Blogger Nifong Supporter said...

"Thanks, B-Man. Can always use an ally."

May 28, 2018 at 4:12 AM

I've got your back Dr. Harr (and your butt) and everyone better watch out for the broomstick.; May 28, 2018 at 2:03 PM
The Broomstick Man Supporter said...: Use that broomstick, B-Man.; May 28, 2018 at 3:02 PM
Anonymous said...: but be careful of the shards; May 28, 2018 at 3:12 PM
Anonymous said...: I see what's going on here.; May 28, 2018 at 3:21 PM
Anonymous said...: ¿Dónde está el palo de escoba?; May 28, 2018 at 5:44 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid on May 23rd:
"I have not seen it yet, but after viewing it, I will prepare it for posting on this site.

Sid on May 28th
"I would post it now, but have other priorities, such as completing a sharlog I began months ago and never finished... "

So, you lied to us on May 23rd is what you're saying. Typical.

May 28, 2018 at 7:07 AM

That is not a lie. It is what I call a "change in plans." Other issues and opportunities presented themselves since I made the statement that forced me to alter my schedule and divert my attention elsewhere. Believe me, the response by the Durham City Attorney on behalf of Bond was quite underwhelming.; May 29, 2018 at 3:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Lol....Filing a lawsuit after the statute of limitations has expired is a reflection of the poor legal skills of you and (presumably) CGM.

May 28, 2018 at 7:15 AM

In no way does the failure to file prior to expiration of the statute of limitations reflect on me or Crystal. Keep in mind that for more than three years following Mangum's conviction (the duration of the statute of limitations), she was being represented by Appellate Defense Attorney Ann B. Petersen and the NC Prisoner Legal Services.

The question should be, "Why did not Petersen file the civil complaint in a timely manner?" Do you have an answer?; May 29, 2018 at 3:55 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
IIRC, CGM (well, you) had 3 years to file a malicious prosecution complaint. Why wait so long?

May 28, 2018 at 1:15 PM

As answered above, during the three year period of the statute of limitations, Mangum was being represented legally by Petersen and the NC Prisoner Legal Services. The question remains, why did they not timely file the malicious prosecution complaint on behalf of their client?

In a letter dated January 17, 2017, Beth McNeill, the NC PLS litigator representing Mangum, abandoned her client and sent her information on how to proceed Pro Se. In essence, it was less than one year before Mangum, completely on her own, filed the complaint.

Can you give justification as to why Mangum's legal counsel did not timely file the malicious prosecution complaint?; May 29, 2018 at 4:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sidney criticizes the response filed by Bond: It doesn't contradict lack of probable cause and it doesn't present evidence in support of probable cause.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of these filings despite the fact that the purpose of these filings has been discussed repeatedly on this website.

A response in a case like this is not supposed to challenge alleged facts. The purpose of these filings is not to determine the facts (the jury is the trier of facts in the legal system). Bond did not challenge the alleged facts because her filing is not supposed to do so.

The purpose of these filings is to determine whether the plaintiff has a valid claim, presuming for this purpose that all of the facts are true as alleged.

Bond's filing addressed the law because that is what the filing is supposed to do. Your filings consistently are dismissed without a trial because you consistently "forget" to include what is supposed to be your focus--the legal issues at hand.

May 28, 2018 at 9:40 AM

The central issue in Mangum's complaint is that the charge of Larceny of Chose in Action lacked probable cause. It seems to me that the onus of defendant Bond is to refute this claim... something which it did not and cannot do. Instead, Bond's counsel sought in its response to attack possible technical and procedural deficiencies (too many pages, un-numbered paragraphs, statute of limitations violations, etc.).; May 29, 2018 at 4:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid, you clearly don't read. Already answered why Peterson didn't file a Civil complaint:

1. It's frivolous;
2. It's outside the scope of her representation, she was appointed for the appeals. Appointed attorneys do not pursue civil claims on behalf of their clients, they only address the criminal case.
3. See #1 - it's frivolous lawsuit that will get tossed, so it wouldn't have been filed by a lawyer anyway.

Oh, and did you file another defamation lawsuit against WRAL?; May 29, 2018 at 5:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

It is hard to have a discussion about Mangum's case when you refuse to publish the documents filed in opposition to it by the other side. In the interest of transparency, why don't you post the response filed by Bond? What is in it that you don't want your readers to see?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; May 29, 2018 at 5:44 AM
FakeKenhyderal said...: "Why did not Petersen file the civil complaint in a timely manner?"

As appellate attorney, it was Anne Petersen's responsibility to read and analyze all of that information from CGM's trial and try to determine the most promising issues to use to obtain relief upon appeal, then compile the brief containing all of the facts of the case and explaining why the particular issues she focused on are grounds for reversal. As Anonymous @5:20 stated, she could only address the criminal case.

With regard to the NCPLS, the services they do and do not provide are listed on their website here: http://www.ncpls.org/work/

Look specifically in the section headed SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY THIS OFFICE where it states:
"Requests for information on legal topics other than post-conviction or condition of confinement issues."

You're welcome.; May 29, 2018 at 6:00 AM
FakeKenhyderal said...: Abe -- Sid could post the documents in a matter of minutes, if he chose to.

He took classes at Wake Technical, after all.

That he chooses not to post them speaks volumes. The malicious prosecution complaint will be tossed out.; May 29, 2018 at 6:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid's going to hide in his shell for the next few weeks, then post the same old tired sharlog covering the arguments he's made ad nauseam -- and he'll completely "forget" about posting the Officer Bond documents.

FYI, Sid -- googling "North Carolina malicious prosecution statute of limitations" will take you to the statute that covers the time frame for filing a malicious prosecution claim.

Exceeding the statute of limitations is totally on you, Sid.; May 29, 2018 at 11:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

So, you are blaming Petersen for failing to file a lawsuit within the statute of limitations? As I recall, immediately after Petersen filed her appeal of the conviction, you announced on this blog that Crystal was terminating Petersen and filing a Bar complaint against her. What obligation did Petersen have to file a lawsuit after Crystal fired her?; May 29, 2018 at 4:17 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,

So, you are blaming Petersen for failing to file a lawsuit within the statute of limitations? As I recall, immediately after Petersen filed her appeal of the conviction, you announced on this blog that Crystal was terminating Petersen and filing a Bar complaint against her. What obligation did Petersen have to file a lawsuit after Crystal fired her?

May 29, 2018 at 4:17 PM

Anony, let me give you a timeline and put things into perspective.

November 22, 2013 Mangum was convicted of Second degree murder and not guilty of the Larceny charge;

Around September 24, 2014 Petersen filed the Direct Appeal that consisted of the one 404(b) issue about Milton Walker. Petersen didn't include anything else in the Direct Appeal... she excluded totally the malicious prosecution on the Larceny of Chose in Action charge, perjured testimony of the sole Grand Jury witness Officer Marianne Bond, and/or argument about Bond's impeached testimony on the larceny's effect on the murder indictment;

Around mid-December 2014 the State responded to the Direct Appeal;

On July 7, 2015 the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied the Mangum Direct Appeal filed by Petersen. Days later, Mangum for the first time saw the Direct Appeal that Petersen had filed and was aghast that it consisted of only one, weak issue. Subsequently, Mangum decided to go it alone rather than rely on Petersen. Mangum proceeded with the appeals process on the Direct Appeal [Note: at this time more than half of the Statute of Limitations had expired];

During this period, and before, I had been unhappy with the representation by Petersen and had sought legal assistance for Mangum from others, including the NAACP, ACLU, NC Innocence Inquiry Commission and other innocence projects, NC Center on Actual Innocence, as well as a few attorneys from the private sector... all attempts being unsuccessful. The NC Prisoner Legal Services stated that it couldn't get involved until the appellate process had been exhausted;

Late November 2015 Mangum filed a Grievance with the NC State Bar against Petersen. (It would take the Bar more than two and a half years before it absolved Petersen of any wrongdoing);

Around January 2016 (I believe... doing this strictly from memory) the NC Supreme Court ruled against Mangum, and shortly thereafter, Mangum again contacted the NC Prison Legal Services;

July 5, 2016 concerned about a Statute of Limitations to involve the Federal Court of Appeals, Mangum filed Pro Se what would turn out to be a Habeas Corpus Petition in Greensboro, NC. During this time, the NC Prisoner Legal Services was waiting to receive trial transcripts [Note: Crystal didn't have them, the Prisoner Legal Services did not want to contact me, and it had been referred to Petersen];

November 22, 2016 the three-year Statute of Limitations from point of conviction had expired with Mangum proceeding Pro Se on her Habeas petition and the Prison Legal Services receiving information about Mangum's case, but taking no action (i.e. writing letters or filing motions); and

January 17, 2017 Prison Legal Services formally abandoned Mangum with its letter by its chief litigator Beth McNeill, and suggested Mangum proceed Pro Se.

Hope that the above provides sufficient clarification. Consider yourself more than aptly elucidated.; May 30, 2018 at 5:10 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid's going to hide in his shell for the next few weeks, then post the same old tired sharlog covering the arguments he's made ad nauseam -- and he'll completely "forget" about posting the Officer Bond documents.

FYI, Sid -- googling "North Carolina malicious prosecution statute of limitations" will take you to the statute that covers the time frame for filing a malicious prosecution claim.

Exceeding the statute of limitations is totally on you, Sid.

May 29, 2018 at 11:04 AM

My previous response to a comment about the Statute of Limitations, I believe, addresses your concerns.

Keep in mind that neither Mangum nor I are attorneys or legally trained. Is it your belief that we should have been aware of the malicious prosecution tort? Do you not believe that Petersen should have acted on the malicious prosecution or at least advised Mangum of it? Do you believe that Petersen bears no responsibility for the complaint not being timely filed? Finally, do you place value of strict adherence to man-made laws above true justice?

Keep in mind that laws are not God-given commandments handed down from the heavens like manna. Laws are man-made and subjected to bias and influence.; May 30, 2018 at 5:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: FakeKenhyderal said...
Abe -- Sid could post the documents in a matter of minutes, if he chose to.

He took classes at Wake Technical, after all.

That he chooses not to post them speaks volumes. The malicious prosecution complaint will be tossed out.

May 29, 2018 at 6:14 AM

Hey, Fake-K.

Truth be told, I currently have more important fish to fry. As it is, the two-part Sharlog that I am currently rushing to complete, was begun many months ago... and then circumstances prompted me to put it on the back-burner, where it's been until several days ago. It's an important sharlog dealing directly with the malicious prosecution issue.

Also, posting the document does take time and effort, which I do not feel is warranted at this time.; May 30, 2018 at 5:26 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...

Sid,

It is hard to have a discussion about Mangum's case when you refuse to publish the documents filed in opposition to it by the other side. In the interest of transparency, why don't you post the response filed by Bond? What is in it that you don't want your readers to see?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

May 29, 2018 at 5:44 AM

Hey, Abe.

First, I don't refuse to post the Response by the Durham City Attorney representing Officer Bond... I do plan on doing so. There's nothing to hide in the pathetic reply.

Second, I think that its publication would be better served along with the Response to it by Mangum. Ergo, I will probably post them simultaneously.

Third, I have not received the legal documents about the response from Mangum. I am under the impression that there may be a difference between what she was sent by the Court and what I copied from Mangum's file.

Before Mangum drafts her Response, I will have to see exactly what she had received.

Hope this answers your questions.; May 30, 2018 at 5:33 AM
Anonymous said...: No. No. Yes. No.

The malicious prosecution lawsuit is completely frivolous.

There is no evidence that Bond committed perjury. Mangum's alleged refusal to return the checks when Daye asked for them is sufficient to support the larceny of chose charge.

A civil lawsuit cannot require the reversal of a criminal conviction.; May 30, 2018 at 5:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid, you clearly don't read. Already answered why Peterson didn't file a Civil complaint:

1. It's frivolous;
2. It's outside the scope of her representation, she was appointed for the appeals. Appointed attorneys do not pursue civil claims on behalf of their clients, they only address the criminal case.
3. See #1 - it's frivolous lawsuit that will get tossed, so it wouldn't have been filed by a lawyer anyway.

Oh, and did you file another defamation lawsuit against WRAL?

May 29, 2018 at 5:20 AM

Regarding your last question, yes... on Friday, May 25, 2018.

Regarding your previous comments, to most Mangum/Nifong detractors, anything filed on behalf of Crystal Mangum is frivolous. Right?; May 30, 2018 at 5:37 AM
Anonymous said...: No. You are wrong.; May 30, 2018 at 5:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
No. No. Yes. No.

The malicious prosecution lawsuit is completely frivolous.

There is no evidence that Bond committed perjury. Mangum's alleged refusal to return the checks when Daye asked for them is sufficient to support the larceny of chose charge.

A civil lawsuit cannot require the reversal of a criminal conviction.

May 30, 2018 at 5:34 AM

Bond must have committed perjury if there is no probable cause for larceny, and she, as the only witness to testify before the Grand Jury, hands up an indictment on the larceny charge.

Also, are you a lawyer? If so, could you refer me to the statute or rule that states a civil complaint cannot provide relief on a criminal conviction?; May 30, 2018 at 5:43 AM
Anonymous said...: I answered your first response regarding probable cause. You totally ignored it.; May 30, 2018 at 5:45 AM
LanceTheIntern said...: I'm coming out of lurker mode to address these questions, so bear with me, Anonymous @ 11:04 am. Please feel free to add to or correct any of my statements here.....

"Keep in mind that neither Mangum nor I are attorneys or legally trained. Is it your belief that we should have been aware of the malicious prosecution tort?" Yes. Crystal (apparently) has a police education background, and you had filed numerous civil lawsuits prior to meeting her. I'm positive at least one of you were aware of it.

"Do you not believe that Petersen should have acted on the malicious prosecution or at least advised Mangum of it?" No. As has been pointed out to you, it was outside of both Petersen's and NCPLS scope to act on a case that does not deal directly with the appeal.

"Do you believe that Petersen bears no responsibility for the complaint not being timely filed?" Neither Petersen or NCPLS bear any responsibility for the complaint not being filed in a timely manner. CGM Should've hired a real lawyer instead of trusting you. Since she didn't, she (and by extension, you) bear that responsibility.

"Finally, do you place value of strict adherence to man-made laws above true justice?
Keep in mind that laws are not God-given commandments handed down from the heavens like manna. Laws are man-made and subjected to bias and influence." No, I do not -- but I recognize that there are penalties for violating those man-made laws. I also recognize that man-made laws are subject to change - so if I don't agree with them, I should be working to change those laws, rather than acting as if they don't exist. Ignorance of the law is, as they say, no excuse.; May 30, 2018 at 5:46 AM
LanceTheIntern said...: "If so, could you refer me to the statute or rule that states a civil complaint cannot provide relief on a criminal conviction?"

I believe that's chapter 15a of the NC General Statutes. IIRC, There are really on 3 ways to challenge a conviction -- writ of habeas corpus, MAR, and 28 U.S.C. §2255 litigation.; May 30, 2018 at 6:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Is the State of North Carolina a party to Crystal's lawsuit? They aren't listed as a defendant. If they aren't a party to the lawsuit, how can they be compelled to provide a remedy?; May 30, 2018 at 8:35 AM
FakeKenhyderal said...: Sid -- You have an "...important sharlog dealing directly with the malicious prosecution issue." to work on, but the response to the malicious prosecution isn't important enough to be included in this sharlog?

Is that right?

I'll also note you didn't respond to points made regarding the responsibilities of Anne Petersen and the NCPLS.; May 30, 2018 at 11:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid, once again, you are told things, but you refuse to listen because you want to whine.

Neither Anne Peterson, nor NCPLS, would ever file a civil lawsuit like you wanted on behalf of a client. It is well outside their scope of representation. You can whine all you want about why they didn't file it, but they didn't file it because it wasn't their job, and it was outside the scope of the representation.

So, please stop whining about why the statute of limitations was missed. It was missed because you and Crystal ignored it because, once again, you wanted special treatment.

You aren't special.; May 30, 2018 at 11:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

Can you post a transcript of Bond's grand jury testimony and highlight what testimony you contend is perjury?; May 30, 2018 at 1:12 PM
The Broomstick Man said...: Be careful. I have my broomstick and I am looking for you.; May 30, 2018 at 5:41 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid,

Can you post a transcript of Bond's grand jury testimony and highlight what testimony you contend is perjury?

May 30, 2018 at 1:12 PM

I have no transcript of Bond's grand jury testimony, and I do not know if it was even transcribed or recorded.

Using ordinary reasoning, it's elementary to deduce that Bond gave perjured testimony if all evidence and testimony directly points to Daye giving Mangum the two cashier's checks and the Grand Jury, upon hearing only Bond's testimony, hands up an indictment claiming that the two cashier's checks were feloniously stolen and taken away. What other conclusion could a reasonable person reach? Can you give an explanation?

I hope you catch my drift.; May 31, 2018 at 4:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid, once again, you are told things, but you refuse to listen because you want to whine.

Neither Anne Peterson, nor NCPLS, would ever file a civil lawsuit like you wanted on behalf of a client. It is well outside their scope of representation. You can whine all you want about why they didn't file it, but they didn't file it because it wasn't their job, and it was outside the scope of the representation.

So, please stop whining about why the statute of limitations was missed. It was missed because you and Crystal ignored it because, once again, you wanted special treatment.

You aren't special.

May 30, 2018 at 11:39 AM

As legal counsel, Petersen and the NC Prisoner Legal Services had an obligation to their client to act in her best interests. The problematic indictment on the Larceny of Chose in Action charge is one of many issues that should have been included in Petersen's Direct Appeal for Mangum. To ignore it is malpractice.

If Mangum's appellate counsels did not feel up to filing a malicious prosecution charge against the state, they could have referred her to a willing source or at least advised her of the possibility in a timely manner.

The justice system in Mangum's case and trial has been void of any fairness and integrity. It's been pitiful.; May 31, 2018 at 4:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid,

Is the State of North Carolina a party to Crystal's lawsuit? They aren't listed as a defendant. If they aren't a party to the lawsuit, how can they be compelled to provide a remedy?

May 30, 2018 at 8:35 AM

Anony, keep in mind I am not an attorney, and maybe Lance, Walt, or A Lawyer can weigh in on the issue. Though the State of North Carolina may not be a party to Mangum's civil lawsuit, it is in the Superior Court of the State's jurisdiction. A State court, in my opinion, should be able to hand down a ruling on a case it is trying irrespective of the nature/origins of either party. Just my lay belief... subject to elucidation.; May 31, 2018 at 4:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous LanceTheIntern said...
I'm coming out of lurker mode to address these questions, so bear with me, Anonymous @ 11:04 am. Please feel free to add to or correct any of my statements here.....

"Keep in mind that neither Mangum nor I are attorneys or legally trained. Is it your belief that we should have been aware of the malicious prosecution tort?" Yes. Crystal (apparently) has a police education background, and you had filed numerous civil lawsuits prior to meeting her. I'm positive at least one of you were aware of it.

"Do you not believe that Petersen should have acted on the malicious prosecution or at least advised Mangum of it?" No. As has been pointed out to you, it was outside of both Petersen's and NCPLS scope to act on a case that does not deal directly with the appeal.

"Do you believe that Petersen bears no responsibility for the complaint not being timely filed?" Neither Petersen or NCPLS bear any responsibility for the complaint not being filed in a timely manner. CGM Should've hired a real lawyer instead of trusting you. Since she didn't, she (and by extension, you) bear that responsibility.

"Finally, do you place value of strict adherence to man-made laws above true justice?
Keep in mind that laws are not God-given commandments handed down from the heavens like manna. Laws are man-made and subjected to bias and influence." No, I do not -- but I recognize that there are penalties for violating those man-made laws. I also recognize that man-made laws are subject to change - so if I don't agree with them, I should be working to change those laws, rather than acting as if they don't exist. Ignorance of the law is, as they say, no excuse.

May 30, 2018 at 5:46 AM

Hey, Lance the Intern.

First, thanks for the references. I looked up the 28 USC 2255 statute briefly, and will study it later when I have time.

With regards to your comments, you admit that Petersen should have known about the malicious prosecution potential for Mangum. If you expect to lay people to know about it, surely an appellate defense attorney should be aware.

Secondly, even if the malicious prosecution tort is not her bailiwick, she has an obligation to inform her client if its advantageous to her position. For example, if a general surgeon is operating to remove an infected appendix and notices a mass on the kidney, he has an obligation to at least inform the patient and possibly give a referral. Just because he is not specialized in renal or cancer surgery does not absolve him of his responsibility to provide notice.

As far as hiring an attorney, I have made it clear that Crystal and I both tried repeatedly to get her legal representation (NAACP, ACLU, innocent commissions, attorneys from the private sector). The problem is that no one would accept her case... and Scott Holmes, when he learned of the malfeasance and criminality associated with the case, abandoned ship to protect his professional career.

As far as changing laws... as a black private citizen in North Carolina, I can't even get an appointment to meet with anyone in the offices of the governor, attorney general or district attorney... but instead, am ignored by them. I don't believe in wasting my time.

Consider yourself elucidated.; May 31, 2018 at 4:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"[I]f all evidence and testimony directly points to Daye giving Mangum the two cashier's checks and the Grand Jury, upon hearing only Bond's testimony, hands up an indictment claiming that the two cashier's checks were feloniously stolen and taken away. What other conclusion could a reasonable person reach? Can you give an explanation?"

So, applying this reasoning, you would have to agree that Mangum perjured herself when she swore that she was raped at the Duke lacrosse party, since all other evidence and testimony pointed the other way.

The answer to your question is that Mr. Daye told Bond that Mangum took the checks from him and wouldn't return them. Bond repeated Mr. Daye's declaration to the Grand Jury. This, coupled with the fact that Mangum had the checks in her possession, led the Grand Jury to hand up an indictment.; May 31, 2018 at 5:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid --
"....if its advantageous to her position".
The malicious prosecution complaint is frivolous - as has been pointed out to you, a civil lawsuit cannot require the reversal of a criminal conviction. Frivolous lawsuit = NOT advantageous. Anne Petersen bears no responsibility for this.

"I don't believe in wasting my time" -- How many of your numerous lawsuits have been successful?

Consider yourself elucidated.; May 31, 2018 at 6:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney asks: What other conclusion could a reasonable person reach? Can you give an explanation?

I believe these questions have been answered repeatedly. You have chosen to ignore the answers.

I do not believe there is evidence to support your claim that Officer Bond committed perjury in here testimony before the grand jury. I will repeat my conclusion: I do not believe there is evidence to support your claim that Officer Bond committed perjury in here testimony before the grand jury.

I believe that Bond's testimony was consistent with the evidence presented by the prosecution in the trial and was based on Daye's statement. Daye gave Magnum the checks for safekeeping. After they had argued, he told her to return the checks. She failed to do so, ran into the kitchen, grabbed a knife and stabbed him. She then left the apartment with her purse that contained the checks. The checks were found in her possession. The jury indicted on this basis.

This explanation is consistent with the evidence presented by the prosecution in the trial. I recognize that you do not believe that a failure to return the checks is consistent with the requirement that the checks be "feloniously stolen." However, I remind you that Meier raised this argument in the trial, and Judge Ridgeway rejected the argument in rejecting Meier's motion to dismiss the larceny charges.

Your lawsuit requires three assumptions: (1) Bond's grand jury testimony was inconsistent with the evidence presented by the prosecution at trial, (2) the legal argument accepted by Judge Ridgeway at the trial (i.e., the failure to return the checks is sufficient to support the larceny charges) is completely unsupportable, and (3) overcharging Magnum with the larceny charges would invalidate the entire indictment and require that the conviction be overturned.

Your lawsuit consists entirely of allegation. You fail to provide any support for any of your claims.

This lawsuit is utterly frivolous. That is the real reason that Petersen did not identify a malicious prosecution issue. There was no issue to identify.; May 31, 2018 at 6:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney asks: keep in mind I am not an attorney, and maybe Lance, Walt, or A Lawyer can weigh in on the issue[whether an entity that is not a party to a lawsuit can be compelled to provide a remedy].

They have already addressed this question, concluding that you were incorrect. Perhaps you can explain why you believe they would provide a different answer today.; May 31, 2018 at 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney whines: I don't believe in wasting my time.

Perhaps you can explain why you don't mind wasting your readers' time. You constantly ask the same question over and over and over again, pretending that the question has not been asked and answered many times before.; May 31, 2018 at 11:02 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: Dr. Harr:

Earlier in this same thread, you posted the following:

Anyone with a problem involving the law, can approach it on a Pro Se basis... even something as serious as the defense of oneself in a first-degree murder case. (Something which I advised Crystal Mangum to do.) Either as plaintiff or defendant, petitioner or respondent, anyone (regardless of legal training or expertise) with paper and a writing implement (be it pen or laptop) can file a Complaint, Response, Motion, Petition, or any other document in a legal situation.

Now that you are confronted with the numerous problems in your lawsuit (including the statute of limitations and the failure to name the right defendant), you suddenly say that Mangum should have had a lawyer. That's what I have been saying for quite some time. Your assistance to Mangum has done her more harm than good.; May 31, 2018 at 11:34 AM
Anonymous said...: sidney complains: Regarding your previous comments, to most Mangum/Nifong detractors, anything filed on behalf of Crystal Mangum is frivolous. Right?

This is completely false and you know that it is false.

For example, none of the "Magnum/Nifong detractors" who post on this website criticized the Petersen appeal as frivolous.

We criticize your filings as frivolous because you demonstrate no understanding of the law, you refuse to learn from your mistakes and you make the same mistakes over and over and over again.

You are either a complete moron or are trolling both your readers and the US justice system.; May 31, 2018 at 12:21 PM
The Broomstick Man said...: If you don’t stop trolling Dr. Harr, I will have to put my broomstick to good use and then you will be removing pieces of wood from your butt.; May 31, 2018 at 4:17 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
Dr. Harr:

Earlier in this same thread, you posted the following:

Anyone with a problem involving the law, can approach it on a Pro Se basis... even something as serious as the defense of oneself in a first-degree murder case. (Something which I advised Crystal Mangum to do.) Either as plaintiff or defendant, petitioner or respondent, anyone (regardless of legal training or expertise) with paper and a writing implement (be it pen or laptop) can file a Complaint, Response, Motion, Petition, or any other document in a legal situation.

Now that you are confronted with the numerous problems in your lawsuit (including the statute of limitations and the failure to name the right defendant), you suddenly say that Mangum should have had a lawyer. That's what I have been saying for quite some time. Your assistance to Mangum has done her more harm than good.

May 31, 2018 at 11:34 AM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

I think you took my statements out of context. Throughout the pre-trial phase, with the exception of a single meeting with Woody Vann, all of Mangum's attorneys have refused to meet with me to discuss the cause of death and medical issues of the case. It was clear to me by this refusal, that her counsel were more concerned about serving the best interests of Duke University Hospital than their client Mangum. So, well before trial, I advised Mangum to represent herself.

As far as the Statute of Limitations, Mangum had legal representation during the three-year post-conviction period, and none of her attorneys raised the issue of the complaint. Her appellate defense attorney never even included it in the Direct Appeal. Problems with naming the proper defendant is not a mortal misstep, however, the fact is that Mangum always preferred professional legal representation, but all attorneys solicited by her and myself refused. Scott Holmes, who could've easily gotten Mangum acquitted in his REM sleep, abandoned her with a flimsy excuse.

I would prefer a professional attorney represent Crystal, but only as long as he/she put Mangum's interests first. Don't think that's asking too much. Hope this provides adequate edification.; June 1, 2018 at 3:33 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...

Sid said:

"[I]f all evidence and testimony directly points to Daye giving Mangum the two cashier's checks and the Grand Jury, upon hearing only Bond's testimony, hands up an indictment claiming that the two cashier's checks were feloniously stolen and taken away. What other conclusion could a reasonable person reach? Can you give an explanation?"

So, applying this reasoning, you would have to agree that Mangum perjured herself when she swore that she was raped at the Duke lacrosse party, since all other evidence and testimony pointed the other way.

The answer to your question is that Mr. Daye told Bond that Mangum took the checks from him and wouldn't return them. Bond repeated Mr. Daye's declaration to the Grand Jury. This, coupled with the fact that Mangum had the checks in her possession, led the Grand Jury to hand up an indictment.

May 31, 2018 at 5:05 AM

Anony, it appears as though you are having trouble differentiating the verbs "give" and "take." Clearly, they are not interchangeable. What Mr. Daye told Officer Bond during a hospital interview on April 4, 2011 (according to Bond's own police report) is that Daye "gave" Mangum the two cashier's checks to hold on to. Period. End of Story. In other words Mangum did not feloniously steal, take and carry away, or otherwise appropriate the cashier's checks.; June 1, 2018 at 3:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

I am nearly finished with a two-part sharlog which was begun many, many months ago, but interrupted by urgent circumstances. It titled "Problematic Larceny of Chose in Action Charge."

I anticipate having it posted before midnight tonight... but don't hold me to that. Definitely it should be posted by this weekend.

As you were.; June 1, 2018 at 3:44 AM
Anonymous said...: I bet that Sid still claims the Larceny of Chose in Action brought felony murder into play, even though that has been repeatedly, and conclusively shown to not be the case. Felony murder was never at issue in this case. Legally it couldn't have been. Every lawyer involved in the case knew that, everyone who has reviewed the case knows that. Everyone Sid sends his letters to knows it, and realizes he doesn't know what he's talking about when he keeps bringing it up.

Sid, since you've had everyone on this board show you statutes and case law explaining why there was no felony murder, why do you keep bringing it up? (Oh, and your standard response of "if it wasn't felony murder, why did they charge it" isn't an answer.)

You refuse to listen, you refuse to learn ... why?

I guarantee you whine about Felony Murder in the new sharlog.; June 1, 2018 at 4:25 AM
Anonymous said...: I didn't see your response to my comment. I answered your question and you ignored it.

I repeat my comment.

Sidney asks: What other conclusion could a reasonable person reach? Can you give an explanation?

I believe these questions have been answered repeatedly. You have chosen to ignore the answers.

I do not believe there is evidence to support your claim that Officer Bond committed perjury in here testimony before the grand jury. I will repeat my conclusion: I do not believe there is evidence to support your claim that Officer Bond committed perjury in here testimony before the grand jury.

I believe that Bond's testimony was consistent with the evidence presented by the prosecution in the trial and was based on Daye's statement. Daye gave Magnum the checks for safekeeping. After they had argued, he told her to return the checks. She failed to do so, ran into the kitchen, grabbed a knife and stabbed him. She then left the apartment with her purse that contained the checks. The checks were found in her possession. The jury indicted on this basis.

This explanation is consistent with the evidence presented by the prosecution in the trial. I recognize that you do not believe that a failure to return the checks is consistent with the requirement that the checks be "feloniously stolen." However, I remind you that Meier raised this argument in the trial, and Judge Ridgeway rejected the argument in rejecting Meier's motion to dismiss the larceny charges.

Your lawsuit requires three assumptions: (1) Bond's grand jury testimony was inconsistent with the evidence presented by the prosecution at trial, (2) the legal argument accepted by Judge Ridgeway at the trial (i.e., the failure to return the checks is sufficient to support the larceny charges) is completely unsupportable, and (3) overcharging Magnum with the larceny charges would invalidate the entire indictment and require that the conviction be overturned.

Your lawsuit consists entirely of allegation. You fail to provide any support for any of your claims.

This lawsuit is utterly frivolous. That is the real reason that Petersen did not identify a malicious prosecution issue. There was no issue to identify.; June 1, 2018 at 5:24 AM
Anonymous said...: "I think you took my statements out of context. Throughout the pre-trial phase, with the exception of a single meeting with Woody Vann, all of Mangum's attorneys have refused to meet with me to discuss the cause of death and medical issues of the case. It was clear to me by this refusal, that her counsel were more concerned about serving the best interests of Duke University Hospital than their client Mangum. So, well before trial, I advised Mangum to represent herself."

Are you a licensed medical professional in the state of North Carolina? If not, why should they meet with you to discuss any medical issues?

It's obvious to me that your self-serving "advice" to Mangum helped paved the way to the place she finds herself now.

"s, Mangum had legal representation during the three-year post-conviction period, and none of her attorneys raised the issue of the complaint. Her appellate defense attorney never even included it in the Direct Appeal.

Answered numerous times. If you bother to actually read the comments, you would know why:
A) The malicious prosecution issue was never raised.
B) It could not have been included on direct appeal.; June 1, 2018 at 5:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney,

Why would Crystal want to appeal an acquittal?; June 1, 2018 at 5:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid said:

"Anony, it appears as though you are having trouble differentiating the verbs "give" and "take." Clearly, they are not interchangeable. What Mr. Daye told Officer Bond during a hospital interview on April 4, 2011 (according to Bond's own police report) is that Daye "gave" Mangum the two cashier's checks to hold on to."

Fair point. It really doesn't matter though, because the larceny charge was dismissed.

My point was, and remains, that the indictment was almost certainly based on the statement Mr. Daye gave together with the evidence (namely, that the checks were in Mangum's possession when she was arrested), and not on any perjured testimony by Bond.

You claim that Bond perjured herself before the Grand Jury is speculative, almost certainly wrong, and isn't going anywhere.; June 1, 2018 at 7:31 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 209 Newer› Newest»

Friday, May 11, 2018

Crystal Mangum's Motion for Default and Summary Judgment

209 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me