justice4nifong: Durham D.A.'s Responsive Brief: Filed March 14, 2019 and Mangum's Reply Brief filed March 20, 2019

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Durham D.A.'s Responsive Brief: Filed March 14, 2019 and Mangum's Reply Brief filed March 20, 2019

32 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
My point is that the defendants never argued that Crystal's claim lacked merit. That's because they are aware that her claim satisfies all four elements of the Malicious Prosecution Complaint.

They can't raise merits defenses now; they're moving to dismiss. If the time ever comes when the motion to dismiss is denied, they will contest the merits.

The problem with your argument is that you fail to take into account rule 1-52(9) which give waives usual accrual of statute of limitation to when claimant first becomes aware of fraud or mistake.

She's not suing for fraud or mistake; she's suing for malicious prosecution. Section 1-52(9) therefore doesn't apply.

The fraud in Mangum's case is that she was defrauded by her post-conviction attorneys into believing that they were acting in her best interests when they were, in fact, not. Relying on there misrepresentation, Mangum did nothing and the three-year statute of limitation expired to her legal injury.

If that were true, it would support a claim of legal malpractice against the attorneys; it wouldn't toll the statute of limitations against the defendants.

Give a reasonable explanation for Mangum's post-conviction attorneys not even alerting Mangum that she had grounds for a malicious prosecution complaint.

Mangum didn't hire those attorneys; they were court-appointed to defend her criminal case. The scope of that appointment does not encompass any duty to investigate or advise about civil claims.

March 20, 2019 at 12:19 PM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

Very interesting responses. Regarding the defendants not attacking merits of Mangum's case... it has been my observation that almost all motions to dismiss are based on Rule 12(b)(6), with I believe is the failure to state a claim. If Mangum's complaint truly lacked merit (or failed to state a claim), then it seems to me that in seeking to dismiss the complaint that the defendants would argue on merits. It appears to me that defendants are grasping at technicalities as their only hope to prevail. So I would disagree that defendants are prohibited from arguing merits as you suggest.

I believe that Crystal does have a legal malpractice lawsuit open to her based on fraud, but I also don't see why the two claims cannot be combined... that Mangum was defrauded by her attorney for the purpose of legally injuring her by forcing her to be unable to timely file a meritorious complaint... and seeking relief by allowing the malicious prosecution case to be reversed and remanded. To me it seems that it all depends on the strictness of the Court's interpretation of "fraud or mistake" in that rule.

Whether Mangum's attorney was appointed or not, doesn't seem to be relevant to me with respect to an attorney's duty to represent their client to the best of their ability. Again, although the appellate defense attorney may not have been duty-bound to pursue a civil lawsuit, if he/she recognized legal grounds I would think it professionally appropriate to alert the client.

Using a medical analogy, if a doctor specializing in neurology finds a malignant eye tumor, he would be expected to tell the patient and refer him to an ophthalmologist or other specialist. At the very least he would notify his patient so that he could receive relief even though he might not be the one to provide it. In the same vein, the criminal appellate defense attorney should have notified a client of possibility of legal action that is civil in nature... it seems to me.

Also, Mangum's case is not restricted to malicious prosecution but is linked to impeached witness testimony, perjury, obstruction of justice and criminal issues that would help overturn Mangum's conviction.; March 20, 2019 at 2:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid -- it's been YOUR "observation that almost all motions to dismiss are based on Rule 12(b)(6), with I believe is the failure to state a claim."

...Because that's been the basis for motions to dismiss YOUR complaints.

There's a term for that......; March 20, 2019 at 3:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Out on the courthouse, with my woman
Gonna help her with her appeal
She needs me to file her motions
And give her plenty of Pro Se
She was sitting alone in front of the judge
Like she's something to sell
I said, baby, call me as a witness
The judge told me to go to hell

Shot down in flames
Shot down in flames
Ain't it a shame
To be shot down in flames

Visiting prison, got my eye on my honey
Hanging out over there
She might be straight
She might want my money
I really don't care, no
Said, baby, you're driving me crazy
Laid it out on the line
When a girl with a chip on her shoulder said
"Toss off buddy she's mine!"
Oh!

Shot down in flames
Shot down in flames
Ain't it a shame, yea yeah
To be shot down in flames

*With apologies to Bon Scott, Angus and Malcolm Young..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKwVvSleM6w; March 20, 2019 at 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney said:

"that Mangum was defrauded by her attorney for the purpose of legally injuring her by forcing her to be unable to timely file a meritorious complaint"

What attorney are you talking about here? Ann Petersen? You and Mangum fired Petersen before the statue of limitations ran out. The NC Prisoner Legal Services? Daniel Meier?

Sidney you talked Mangum into severing all ties with the legal profession way before 11/22/2016. But I could be wrong here and Mangum did have an attorney during this time frame. So, please name the attorney or attorneys that injured her by forcing her to be unable to timely file a meritorious complaint?; March 20, 2019 at 6:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid is again refusing to listen to anyone, and refusing to listen.

The sad part is Crystal doesn't realize that Sid is lying to her (and knows it).

This effort will fail, as have all the others.

Sid doesn't want to help Crystal, he wants to control her.

He's as abusive as her past boyfriends.

It's horribly sad.; March 21, 2019 at 12:18 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid -- it's been YOUR "observation that almost all motions to dismiss are based on Rule 12(b)(6), with I believe is the failure to state a claim."

...Because that's been the basis for motions to dismiss YOUR complaints.

There's a term for that......

March 20, 2019 at 3:40 PM

Hey, Anony.

The reason that Rule 12(b)(6) has been used in my lawsuits is because the defendants could not find any technicalities in process upon which to base a defense. And though that Rule has been used against me, it is no way reflective on the merits of my complaints.; March 22, 2019 at 5:19 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Out on the courthouse, with my woman
Gonna help her with her appeal
She needs me to file her motions
And give her plenty of Pro Se
She was sitting alone in front of the judge
Like she's something to sell
I said, baby, call me as a witness
The judge told me to go to hell

Shot down in flames
Shot down in flames
Ain't it a shame
To be shot down in flames

Visiting prison, got my eye on my honey
Hanging out over there
She might be straight
She might want my money
I really don't care, no
Said, baby, you're driving me crazy
Laid it out on the line
When a girl with a chip on her shoulder said
"Toss off buddy she's mine!"
Oh!

Shot down in flames
Shot down in flames
Ain't it a shame, yea yeah
To be shot down in flames

*With apologies to Bon Scott, Angus and Malcolm Young..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKwVvSleM6w

March 20, 2019 at 6:04 PM

Have you considered teaming up with Weird Al? Think you have a future there.

... or is Mr. Yankovich posting this comment? Hah!; March 22, 2019 at 5:26 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney said:

"that Mangum was defrauded by her attorney for the purpose of legally injuring her by forcing her to be unable to timely file a meritorious complaint"

What attorney are you talking about here? Ann Petersen? You and Mangum fired Petersen before the statue of limitations ran out. The NC Prisoner Legal Services? Daniel Meier?

Sidney you talked Mangum into severing all ties with the legal profession way before 11/22/2016. But I could be wrong here and Mangum did have an attorney during this time frame. So, please name the attorney or attorneys that injured her by forcing her to be unable to timely file a meritorious complaint?

March 20, 2019 at 6:07 PM

The attorneys that I am referring to are Mangum's post-conviction attorneys... Ann B. Petersen and the NC Prisoner Legal Services.

True that Mangum dismissed Petersen prior to the Statute of Limitation's expiration, but Mangum did so with cause. I understand the point you are trying to make, but Petersen is partially responsible as is the NC Prisoner Legal Services. They both share liability for the "untimely" filing because they were representing Mangum prior to the expiration of the three-year statute's expiration. Meier, of course, had nothing to do with this post-conviction debacle.

As far as the NC Prisoner Legal Services goes, I did not encourage Mangum to sever ties with that agency, and I tried to comply with the injunction, as well. It was the NC Prisoner Legal Services that refused to meet with me to discuss Crystal's case. It was that group that didn't even want me to hand-deliver letters from Crystal. It wasn't until the January 17, 2017 letter in which NC Prisoner Legal Services officially abandoned Mangum that I became fully involved in her case legally.

The name of the NC Prisoner Legal Services attorney who drafted the abandonment letter was its Director of Litigation Beth McNeill.; March 22, 2019 at 5:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid is again refusing to listen to anyone, and refusing to listen.

The sad part is Crystal doesn't realize that Sid is lying to her (and knows it).

This effort will fail, as have all the others.

Sid doesn't want to help Crystal, he wants to control her.

He's as abusive as her past boyfriends.

It's horribly sad.

March 21, 2019 at 12:18 PM

I do not understand your reasoning. First and foremost, I never hit, punched, choked, or dragged Crystal by her hair... never busted down a locked door to get at her, and I never threw steak knives at her.

What I have done is assist her with the filing of legal document, driven many miles to visit her weekly, purchased gift boxes for her, made contributions to her through J-Pay, and advocated for her to receive justice by meeting with individuals and producing sharlogs and shar-videos.

Like myself, Crystal knows the truths of her case. The lies and criminality in her case is borne by the prosecution side.

Hope this provides you with much-needed elucidation.; March 22, 2019 at 5:46 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: Another swing, another miss. The dismissal of the MP case will be affirmed unanimously. Dr. Harr will need a new crying towel. Then it will be on to the next sure-to-fail scheme.; March 22, 2019 at 8:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
Another swing, another miss. The dismissal of the MP case will be affirmed unanimously. Dr. Harr will need a new crying towel. Then it will be on to the next sure-to-fail scheme.

March 22, 2019 at 8:36 AM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

Hah! What a pessimist... especially in light of the facts. The Malicious Prosecution case is iron-clad. The ruling on it should be a no-brainer... in Mangum's favor, of course. The Durham D.A.'s Office's defense is pathetic... resorting to technicalities because they can't challenge the merits. For that matter, no one can challenge the merits of Mangum's case. Not even you... I don't think.

Dr. Caligari, if you can provide probable cause for the Larceny of Chose in Action charge, I would very much like to hear it. The charge should never have been delivered to the jury for deliberation. The court should have dismissed it on a pre-trial motion by Mangum.; March 23, 2019 at 8:27 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: Dr. Caligari, if you can provide probable cause for the Larceny of Chose in Action charge, I would very much like to hear it. The charge should never have been delivered to the jury for deliberation. The court should have dismissed it on a pre-trial motion by Mangum.

(a) No one will ever have to discuss the merits because the statute of limitations bars the claim.

(b) As you've been told many times in the past, there is no such thing in North Carolina law as a pretrial motion to dismiss a count in an indictment.

(c) After the trial judge heard the prosecution's evidence, he denied a defense motion for as directed verdict on the larceny count and let it go to the jury. I don't know if North Carolina follows the same rule, but, at least in California, that ruling automatically proves probable cause.

(d) Most importantly, you have this idea in your head that winning a malicious prosecution case on the larceny count will somehow free Mangum from her murder conviction. It can't and it won't.; March 23, 2019 at 8:47 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: Hey, Dr. Caligari. Hah! What a pessimist... especially in light of the facts.

In light of the facts that you have filed how many-- 30? 40?--lawsuits in your lifetime and have never won a single one, and that you make no effort to learn from your defeats by studying some real law, I don't think I'm a pessimist, just a realist.; March 23, 2019 at 1:34 PM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Dr. Harr,

Have you heard from kenhyderal? It is not like him to stop contributing comments to your blog. Perhaps, he is busy assisting you with your secret projects?; March 24, 2019 at 9:51 AM
Doogie Howser said...: Is anyone home?; March 26, 2019 at 3:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
Dr. Caligari, if you can provide probable cause for the Larceny of Chose in Action charge, I would very much like to hear it. The charge should never have been delivered to the jury for deliberation. The court should have dismissed it on a pre-trial motion by Mangum.

(a) No one will ever have to discuss the merits because the statute of limitations bars the claim.

(b) As you've been told many times in the past, there is no such thing in North Carolina law as a pretrial motion to dismiss a count in an indictment.

(c) After the trial judge heard the prosecution's evidence, he denied a defense motion for as directed verdict on the larceny count and let it go to the jury. I don't know if North Carolina follows the same rule, but, at least in California, that ruling automatically proves probable cause.

(d) Most importantly, you have this idea in your head that winning a malicious prosecution case on the larceny count will somehow free Mangum from her murder conviction. It can't and it won't.

March 23, 2019 at 8:47 AM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

I assume from (a) that you do not deny that Mangum's malicious prosecution claim lacks merit or "fails to state a claim."

As for (b) there were pre-trial motions in Mangum's case... most of which were ignored. I am no legal scholar, but I still find it hard to believe that a pre-trial motion to dismiss a charge (especially one based on absence of probable cause) is not permitted.

Regarding (c), I do not see how a judge's ruling could possibly justify a disputed charge... especially after only the prosecution's case is presented. Doesn't seem fair or logical to me, but, again, I'm not legally trained.

With respect to (d), if Mangum prevails in the malicious prosecution case, then that would give credence to her claim that the sole witness before the grand jury committed perjury and ergo discredit her testimony on the murder charge. Following the axiom "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," the murder indictment would therefore be brought into question.

Hope that this brings you some elucidation.; March 26, 2019 at 3:45 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
Hey, Dr. Caligari. Hah! What a pessimist... especially in light of the facts.

In light of the facts that you have filed how many-- 30? 40?--lawsuits in your lifetime and have never won a single one, and that you make no effort to learn from your defeats by studying some real law, I don't think I'm a pessimist, just a realist.

March 23, 2019 at 1:34 PM

Dr. Caligari, regardless of how many lawsuits I filed and lost, the merits of Mangum's complaint for malicious prosecution is not diminished. The merits of her case are present as all four elements of the Complaint are present. Even the defendants concede the merits of Mangum's case. That is why they use the only defense available to them... the technicality of untimely filing.

You are a pessimist in the face of a compelling Complaint filed by Mangum. I believe that had Judge Hardin been in charge of the case Mangum would have prevailed on a summary judgment or the case would have gone to trial. In order for the state to improve its odds, it was necessary to have Roy Cooper's recently appointed judge assigned to the case, instead.; March 26, 2019 at 3:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Doogie Howser said...
Is anyone home?

March 26, 2019 at 3:18 AM

Hey, Doogie.

Really don't understand the meaning of your question. Could you re-phrase it with the inclusion of a cognitive statement and/or question? Thanks.; March 26, 2019 at 4:00 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous kenhyderal supporter said...
Dr. Harr,

Have you heard from kenhyderal? It is not like him to stop contributing comments to your blog. Perhaps, he is busy assisting you with your secret projects?

March 24, 2019 at 9:51 AM

Hey, kenhyderal supporter.

I haven't heard from kenhyderal recently. I imagine, like many of us, he is busy with his life and livelihood. Even though my life centers around Crystal Mangum, there are times when I don't have the opportunity to post a comment.

Note: I receive comments on my cellphone, and if I fail to publish them immediately, they may inadvertently be omitted. So if a comment is not posted within hours (a minimum of six hours) of sending it, it may be due to the fact that I failed to see it or failed to immediately publish it.; March 26, 2019 at 4:20 AM
kenhyderal said...: Present and waiting, in constant hope, for the inevitable freedom and commplete vindication of my friend Crystal; March 27, 2019 at 2:47 PM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Dr. Harr,

I am very relieved to see that kenhyderal is still posting on your blog. I was concerned that the powers that be attempted to silence him.

I am certain that he will continue to serve as an outspoken advocate for his friend.; March 28, 2019 at 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Right on kenhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril.

Malek Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996; March 31, 2019 at 5:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Where are those "secret" and "secret-secret" projects you were bragging about? IIRC, you were supposed to release the details of the "secret" project in a shar-log around Mid-March.

As for your "secret-secret" project (your so-called "nuclear option"), you didn't provide a date, but for the life of me, I can't see why you'd announce it, then not publish it.; April 2, 2019 at 8:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Where are those "secret" and "secret-secret" projects you were bragging about? IIRC, you were supposed to release the details of the "secret" project in a shar-log around Mid-March.

As for your "secret-secret" project (your so-called "nuclear option"), you didn't provide a date, but for the life of me, I can't see why you'd announce it, then not publish it.

April 2, 2019 at 8:29 AM

Hey, Anony.

Needless to say, I've been busy. A lot of legal matters have coalesced around the same time, and my hands are full with briefs, etc. As far as the one secret project, it is out of my hands. It is past due, and as soon as it is available I will make mention of it on this site. The secret-secret project has not even been considered as I am busy on legal stuff and trying to get my latest shar-video produced. Had to delay work on it to tend to legal mattes. Tomorrow or the next day I will post the latest set of briefs in Mangum's case... which consist of Bond's Responsive Brief and Mangum's Reply Brief.

Sorry that I'ven't had a greater presence on the comment section, but, as already stated, I've been really busy.; April 2, 2019 at 6:27 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Right on kenhyderal. Anyone who actually knows Crystal rejects completely the vicious slander, that emananated from The Duke Lacrosse Defence, in an effort to destroy her credibility. These lies are ongoing and widely beleived. None of those who post their poison here have ever met Crystal. I ask them, don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references. Hearing these references caused Judge Abraham Jones to declared that, from the evidence he heard, he beleived her to be "a good mother" Crystal is not and never was a prostitute. Crystal is not and never was a drug addict or an alcoholic. Crystal was a responsible parent. Crystal was a responsible member of her community. Crystal, having come from humble circumstances, was working hard to build a better like for herself and her children. Her Pastor advised her not to choose exotic dancing and escorting as a way to support herself because, regardless of her character,such a choice can be fraught with peril.

Malek Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996

March 31, 2019 at 5:56 AM

Yes, Malek, Crystal Mangum is a very good person and a very loving parent. It is a tragedy that many years of her life have been taken from her because of a spiteful vendetta... victimizing her again and again.; April 2, 2019 at 6:31 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal supporter said...
Dr. Harr,

I am very relieved to see that kenhyderal is still posting on your blog. I was concerned that the powers that be attempted to silence him.

I am certain that he will continue to serve as an outspoken advocate for his friend.

March 28, 2019 at 6:04 PM

Yes, kenhyderal supporter, I too am pleased that kenhyderal is waiting in the wings to add intelligent and enlightening comment to this site.

Now that things are starting to get interesting, I'm worried about other commenters not being around... such as Walt, JSwift, and others. I'm afraid that once the tide turns in Crystal's favor they, and other Mangum detractor will abandon the site... jump site, so to speak.; April 2, 2019 at 6:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid's hand are full of briefs...
Who's briefs?
Depends; April 3, 2019 at 4:07 PM
Anonymous said...: If one is seeking to lance a boil, it is a best practice to seek out a physician or veterinarian. If one is seeking to file a lawsuit, it is best to seek out a lawyer, as physicians usually have no clue about filing lawsuits and lawyers know little about lancing boils.

Sidney has well demonstrated so many times over the years that he knows little about lawsuits. Had he consulted a lawyer, he would have found out about Rules 4(j)(4)(b) and (c). Sidney would have us believe that he thought that the Attorney General was not a party and thus did not need to be served. Yet one of those lawyers would have pointed him to the rules of civil procedure which require state agencies to designate an agent for service of process, that the state agency so notify the Attorney General of that agent (so the AG can direct service appropriately) or failing to so designate, then the rules provide for service upon the Attorney General. Any simple lawyer knows this, and could easily perform this task, just as any physician or veterinarian can lance a boil. This is why North Carolina, and all the other states and the federal government require people practicing law to have certain training and pass an exam to test if they have the basic knowledge of the law to hold themselves out as lawyers. Sidney, has no such training, and he continually proves the need for legal training to be competent. As is, he is incompetent to practice law and should have nothing to do with it.

As he continues to "advise" Crystal Gail Mangum, he is giving her incompetent advice. As she continues to take it, says much about her. But then, she has a long history of making bad choices going back to falsely reporting not one, but two gang rapes, stealing a cab, making her living as a prostitute, knifing her lover's tire, setting fire to her lover's clothes in his bathtub, and killing a different lover. I sincerely hope her lengthy prison sentence is helping her work out her anger issues. Otherwise, I fear this will be just one episode of a life sentence on the installment plan.; April 4, 2019 at 6:23 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: If one is seeking to lance a boil, it is a best practice to seek out a physician or veterinarian. If one is seeking to file a lawsuit, it is best to seek out a lawyer, as physicians usually have no clue about filing lawsuits and lawyers know little about lancing boils.

Sidney has well demonstrated so many times over the years that he knows little about lawsuits. Had he consulted a lawyer, he would have found out about Rules 4(j)(4)(b) and (c). Sidney would have us believe that he thought that the Attorney General was not a party and thus did not need to be served. Yet one of those lawyers would have pointed him to the rules of civil procedure which require state agencies to designate an agent for service of process, that the state agency so notify the Attorney General of that agent (so the AG can direct service appropriately) or failing to so designate, then the rules provide for service upon the Attorney General. Any simple lawyer knows this, and could easily perform this task, just as any physician or veterinarian can lance a boil. This is why North Carolina, and all the other states and the federal government require people practicing law to have certain training and pass an exam to test if they have the basic knowledge of the law to hold themselves out as lawyers. Sidney, has no such training, and he continually proves the need for legal training to be competent. As is, he is incompetent to practice law and should have nothing to do with it.

I have been advising Dr. Harr exactly that for quite some time.; April 5, 2019 at 8:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
If one is seeking to lance a boil, it is a best practice to seek out a physician or veterinarian. If one is seeking to file a lawsuit, it is best to seek out a lawyer, as physicians usually have no clue about filing lawsuits and lawyers know little about lancing boils.

Sidney has well demonstrated so many times over the years that he knows little about lawsuits. Had he consulted a lawyer, he would have found out about Rules 4(j)(4)(b) and (c). Sidney would have us believe that he thought that the Attorney General was not a party and thus did not need to be served. Yet one of those lawyers would have pointed him to the rules of civil procedure which require state agencies to designate an agent for service of process, that the state agency so notify the Attorney General of that agent (so the AG can direct service appropriately) or failing to so designate, then the rules provide for service upon the Attorney General. Any simple lawyer knows this, and could easily perform this task, just as any physician or veterinarian can lance a boil. This is why North Carolina, and all the other states and the federal government require people practicing law to have certain training and pass an exam to test if they have the basic knowledge of the law to hold themselves out as lawyers. Sidney, has no such training, and he continually proves the need for legal training to be competent. As is, he is incompetent to practice law and should have nothing to do with it.

As he continues to "advise" Crystal Gail Mangum, he is giving her incompetent advice. As she continues to take it, says much about her. But then, she has a long history of making bad choices going back to falsely reporting not one, but two gang rapes, stealing a cab, making her living as a prostitute, knifing her lover's tire, setting fire to her lover's clothes in his bathtub, and killing a different lover. I sincerely hope her lengthy prison sentence is helping her work out her anger issues. Otherwise, I fear this will be just one episode of a life sentence on the installment plan.

April 4, 2019 at 6:23 AM

Hey, Anony.

Unfortunately, you miss the point. I have no problem with Crystal receiving legal advice and assistance from an attorney. I have even tried to obtain legal assistance for her. But the attorneys I've contacted have refused to accept her case... including NC Innocence Inquiry Commission, NC Center on Actual Innocence, NAACP, ACLU, and other private attorneys (most of whom will not work pro bono).

My position is that it is better to do something than to do nothing. Even though the odds against being successful may be great. Consider that you cannot win the lottery if you do not play the lottery. At least with me giving assistance, Crystal Mangum is in the game.

Comprende?; April 7, 2019 at 9:19 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
If one is seeking to lance a boil, it is a best practice to seek out a physician or veterinarian. If one is seeking to file a lawsuit, it is best to seek out a lawyer, as physicians usually have no clue about filing lawsuits and lawyers know little about lancing boils.

Sidney has well demonstrated so many times over the years that he knows little about lawsuits. Had he consulted a lawyer, he would have found out about Rules 4(j)(4)(b) and (c). Sidney would have us believe that he thought that the Attorney General was not a party and thus did not need to be served. Yet one of those lawyers would have pointed him to the rules of civil procedure which require state agencies to designate an agent for service of process, that the state agency so notify the Attorney General of that agent (so the AG can direct service appropriately) or failing to so designate, then the rules provide for service upon the Attorney General. Any simple lawyer knows this, and could easily perform this task, just as any physician or veterinarian can lance a boil. This is why North Carolina, and all the other states and the federal government require people practicing law to have certain training and pass an exam to test if they have the basic knowledge of the law to hold themselves out as lawyers. Sidney, has no such training, and he continually proves the need for legal training to be competent. As is, he is incompetent to practice law and should have nothing to do with it.

I have been advising Dr. Harr exactly that for quite some time.

April 5, 2019 at 8:36 AM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

Much of my answer to your question is in my comment above.

However, answer me this: If Crystal's attorneys were so competent and adept, why was a malicious prosecution complaint not filed in a timely manner? That is the big question for which no one seems to have an answer.; April 7, 2019 at 9:28 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

I've just received word. My secret project (one of them) is on the way and I should be able to reveal it later this week. Surely by this coming Saturday.

As you were.; April 7, 2019 at 9:31 AM

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Durham D.A.'s Responsive Brief: Filed March 14, 2019 and Mangum's Reply Brief filed March 20, 2019

32 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me