Saturday, August 3, 2019

Harr v. WRAL-5 News: Harr's Petition for Discretionary Review

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,

30 comments:

Jim Bob Walton said...

Sid, I see that you failed to mention in your Petition for Discretionary Review your annual pizza party in Tacoma. Wny was that?

August 3, 2019 at 1:48 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Jim Bob Walton said...
Sid, I see that you failed to mention in your Petition for Discretionary Review your annual pizza party in Tacoma. Wny was that?

August 3, 2019 at 1:48 PM


Hey, Jim Bob.

If you're a new commenter, let me give you the official greeting by quoting John McClane: "Welcome to the party, pal."

There was a reason I mentioned the annual Tacoma pizza party (which I hold every June) in my Motion for Rehearing En Banc. It so happened that my appeal was heard by the NC Court of Appeals on May 18, 2019, and that its decision was filed quickly in two weeks. (The norm for time from a hearing until its filing of an opinion is around 90 days.) Anyway, the NC Court of Appeals filed its Opinion on my case on June 4, 2019... the very day that I left on a flight from Raleigh to Sea-Tac airport for a ten-day stay in Tacoma. The Pizza party scheduled for June 10th.

It just so happens that there is a ten-day time limit by which to file a Motion for Rehearing En Banc. Since my travels were planned months in advance (and I had no way of predicting when the opinion would be filed) the timing of the filing made it impossible to meet that deadline by which to file. That is why, when I also filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion/Petition for Rehearing En Banc that I mentioned the plans that I had made many months earlier for the trip out of state. I needed to explain why I was not able to timely file the Motion for Rehearing within the ten-day span.

Timeliness of filing was not an issue with filing of the Petition for Discretionary Review with the NC Supreme Court, ergo it was not necessary for me to discuss the Tacoma trip.

However, had the NC Court of Appeals dismissed my Motion/Petition for Discretionary Review based on untimeliness of filing, then I would have brought up before the NC Supreme Court my Tacoma trip for the pizza party. In this case with the NC Supreme Court it just wasn't necessary.

Hope this explanation is satisfactory.

August 3, 2019 at 5:58 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
I think you miss the point I am trying to make.

No, you are missing the point I am trying to make, which is that if you want to win a lawsuit, you have to address the law as it is, not as you wish it were.

I know that the Federal rule doesn't necessarily apply to a State case, however, the Federal Rule on Summary Judgment requires that a statement be made on record for why a motion is granted or denied in order to hold the judge accountable. The State Rule doesn't go that far, but that does not mean that it shouldn't.

Maybe it should, but it doesn't. You wrote your brief as if it were reversible error for the judge to not explain his reasons. You gave no other reason for reversal, and that's why you lost.

Also, I know the definition of merit. My position is that Judge Collins' summary ruling in my initial lawsuit was not based on merit. That is obvious by the brevity of his one-page/two-paragraph/four-sentence order.

You just showed that you don't know the definition of a dismissal "on the merits." Every order dismissing a case is a dismissal "on the merits," unless it explicitly says that it's a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, or incorrect venue. The number of words used doesn't matter.

The NC Court of Appeals did not even address this issue. Its ruling only took the defendants' position into consideration. That is not due process.

They only took the defendants' position into consideration because only their position has any basis in the law.

August 1, 2019 at 8:57 PM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

I believe judges should be held accountable for their decisions... especially when depriving someone of their Seventh Amendment Right to a jury trial. All I am asking is that Collins provide an explanation for his decision to dismiss my case. Don't think that's too much to ask.

What I would ask you is: Do you believe the WRAL-5 News article was correct in referring to me as a "Durham man"? Yes, or No. Give me a simple response.

August 3, 2019 at 6:07 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,

I agree that you have failed Mangum. However I disagree with your claim that you don't have an inflated ego.

If it wasn't for your ego, you would have at least considered the merits of the State's case against Mangum, listened to what Mangum's lawyers (and everyone else involved in or with knowledge of the case) were saying, been mindful of the reality and gravity of Mangum's legal situation and the peril you were placing her in by pursuing your agenda.

Instead you arrogantly dismissed all facts, evidence and law that did not support your position, attacked everyone who disagreed with you as a turncoat, stupid, unethical and/or part of a huge conspiracy. And you made bold and wildly inaccurate proclamations mocking any and all who dared disagree with you and predicting Mangum's imminent release and exoneration.

This wasn't a game - a man died and Mangum was charged with murdering him. But, you have consistently acted like it was and used Mangum's plight to engage in self aggrandizement, and to advance your own agenda (at the expense of Mangum's interests).

With competent representation and the support of her friends and family, I believe Mangum would have been convicted of a less serious charge. She would likely be out of prison by now (or close to it) and could have been well on her way to getting her life turned around and on the right track. As it stands now, she is almost certainly looking at an additional 7+ years in prison and I question whether she will come out of it with anything but an incorrect belief that she is a victim and a massive chip on her shoulder.

I think both of you should reflect on your behavior over the past 10+ years, take responsibility for your actions and make changes. What both of you are doing has gotten you no where and, in fact, has made your situations worse.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

August 2, 2019 at 6:20 AM


Abe, bro... where's the love? I agree with gui, mon ami, that you're being much too harsh on me. -- CONTINUED BELOW DUE TO CHARACTER LIMIT --

August 3, 2019 at 6:10 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Abe, the only agenda I had was seeing Crystal Mangum receive justice. Her attorneys were turncoats because they refused to meet with me and did their best to stay clear of cause of death issues because they implicated Duke University Hospital staff. Mangum's attorneys were more interested in protecting Duke and prosecution witnesses than representing the best interests of their client Mangum. The fact that Daniel Meier allowed three jurors to be seated with close ties to Duke attests to what I say on this issue.

I beg to differ with you on the point of competent legal representation. Had she had it, she would have been acquitted of all charges.

Also, I am glad that Crystal did not accept a plea deal because she was innocent. Plea deals are for the benefit of the guilty. However, many African Americans will take them despite their innocence just to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. Despite accepting a plea deal, many often end up with lengthy sentences anyway and, additionally, have a guilty confession on their record, too.

What I wanted Crystal to do was to represent herself, but during her time out on bail she wanted to spend time with her family... and she still had some faith in the legal system. She felt that she would be found not guilty of murder. Had she represented herself, she surely couldn't have done any worse than the turncoat attorneys.

What is happening to Mangum is the same thing that happened to O.J. Simpson in Las Vegas. That entire conviction on armed robbery/kidnapping was probably a set-up and conspiracy... all done as vengeance against him for the earlier deaths of his wife and her friend Ron Goldman. The trumped up murder charge against Mangum is nothing more than payback for her role as accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case. And everybody knows it. That's why the NAACP, ACLU, SCLC, NC Legislative/Congressional Black Caucuses, and other so-called civil rights organizations will not get involved in helping Crystal.

Unlike the aforementioned organizations, at least I am doing something that potentially will help Crystal be released and exonerated.

August 3, 2019 at 6:39 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous guiowen said...
Abe,
Don't be so hard on Sidney.
Think of it this way: Crystal is a very fragile person. She needs to feel that someone has her best interest at heart. Sidney goes to see her every week, explains what he is doing, and promises she will soon be exonerated and set free. This buoys her spirit.
Of course it would be better if Sid actually got her out, but at least she gets to feel someone is trying.

August 2, 2019 at 9:40 AM


Hey, gui, mon ami.

Thanks for the words of support. However, I believe that Crystal will be released very soon. The way I see it, the light at the end of the tunnel is not the headlamp of an oncoming locomotive, but the end of the tunnel.

Unfortunately, the visits will become more cumbersome as she has been moved with other inmates to a prison across the state. Whereas now I travel an hour to Goldsboro to visit, beginning next week she will be two to three hours away at the Lanesboro prison... effectively costing me an entire day.

Although my efforts that I hoped would bring justice to Crystal fell through (I'll discuss them in an upcoming shar-video), I have a few other irons in the fire that I think will be very effective.

August 3, 2019 at 6:48 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Abe,

Don't forget, based on the letters Sid posted (and then took down) from Mangum's lawyer, she was offered a manslaughter plea and rejected it. She could have been home now.

She had competent legal counsel, they couldn't overcome Sid.

August 2, 2019 at 10:36 AM


Hey, Anony.

You may not realize it, but Mangum's lawyers did not want her to win (be acquitted). They went through the motions, to an extent. Mangum's case was practically conviction-proof. The State required a crooked medical examiner, and perjured testimony from four main witnesses, in addition to a trial with three Duke-related jurors, and a bias trial judge in order to get a second-degree murder conviction. The entirety was a travesty of a vindictive prosecution.

Mangum's attorneys may have been competent, but their priorities were to benefit Duke and state witnesses at Mangum's expense.

I think Crystal did two important things regarding her trial: (1) turned down plea deal offered by the State; and (2) testified at her trial (at which I think she did an outstanding job).

Actually, when Crystal was out on bail (mid-February 2013) and up through her conviction on November 22, 2013, I had very little contact with her. She understandably was not interested in studying to represent herself and wanted to spend time with her family. I rarely communicated with her during this nine-month period, although I remained active on my blog site and writing letters and other activities advocating on her behalf. So to be honest, I had very little, if any, influence on the outcome of Mangum's second-degree murder conviction.

August 3, 2019 at 7:03 PM
Dr. Caligari said...

What I would ask you is: Do you believe the WRAL-5 News article was correct in referring to me as a "Durham man"? Yes, or No. Give me a simple response.

Not correct, but also not defamatory.

And if you disagreed, the way to seek relief was by an appeal of the first case, not by starting a new case.

August 4, 2019 at 7:47 AM
Anonymous said...

Sid -- To save you some time, here's a quick definition of a defamatory statement:
"A defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business or trade."

While calling you a "Durham man" is a "false statement of fact", does it expose you to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, cause you to be shunned, or injure you in your business or trade?

Yes, or No. Give me a simple response.

August 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM
kenhyderal said...

@ Anonymous 10:36 08-02-19 in the previous thread …………………. "In the broken US Justice System innocence is irrelevant. "This is the age of the plea bargain. Most people adjudicated in the criminal-justice system today waive the right to a trial and the host of protections that go along with one, including the right to appeal. Instead, they plead guilty. The vast majority of felony convictions are now the result of plea bargains—some 94 percent at the state level, and some 97 percent at the federal level. Estimates for misdemeanor convictions run even higher. These are astonishing statistics, and they reveal a stark new truth about the American criminal-justice system: Very few cases go to trial. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged this reality in 2012, writing for the majority in Missouri v. Frye, a case that helped establish the right to competent counsel for defendants who are offered a plea bargain. Quoting a law-review article, Kennedy wrote, “ ‘Horse trading [between prosecutor and defense counsel] determines who goes to jail and for how long. That is what plea bargaining is. It is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system"----- Emily Joffe The Atlantic Magazine Sept 2017.

August 6, 2019 at 8:37 PM
Anonymous said...

The US justice system has many protections for people accused of crimes, at every stage of the process, from arrest thru conviction and after.

There are standards of proof that must be met, even to arrest and charge someone. Defendants can avail themselves of pretrial motions to test the validity of the charges and evidence against them. Finally, the US system requires prosecutors to turn their evidence over to the defense well in advance of the trial, so defendants know exactly what will be used against them at trial (provided the prosecutor is ethical and not Nifongian).

By the time a case goes to trial, the defendant knows exactly what he or she is charged with, the sentence they face if convicted, the evidence the state has against them, the witnesses that will be called, and they have had an opportunity to test the charges and the validity/admissibility of the evidence in court. Under these circumstances it shouldn't be surprising that many people charged with crimes would choose to resolve those charges prior to trial.

Indeed, the US system encourages such resolutions and empowers prosecutors to work with defendants to structure plea deals and sentences that reflect the unique circumstances of each case and each defendant - and, in so doing, to consider evidence and circumstances that would be inadmissible in court (but might be highly relevant to determining the defendant's culpability and imposing a fair sentence). Sid has reported that such a resolution was offered to Mangum and she rejected it.

To Americans, who place great value individual liberty and fairness, reaching a just resolution is far more important than bringing every case to trial and imposing one-size-fits-all sentences without consideration of the unique facts and circumstances of each case and defendant.

In any event, Mangum did not accept a plea deal and took her case to trial, so your fallacious and ad hominem attack on the US justice system is irrelevant. Rather than accept a fair offer to plea to a reduced charge with a lesser sentence, Mangum rolled the dice and lost. She availed herself of all her post conviction appeals, reviews and remedies and lost those, too. She does not get a second, third or eighth bite at the apple because of her bad choices. Her case is over and she stays in prison.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

August 7, 2019 at 5:26 AM
kenhyderal said...

@ Abe: My attack on the US Justice System is not fallacious. You, and everybody else know it's broken and desperately needs reform.

August 8, 2019 at 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...

Your arguments are fallacious and of no moment to Mangum's case or situation.

Mangum has no one but herself to blame for her situation.

Insulting and attacking other people (and countries) does nothing to help Mangum and only makes you look bad.

No sausage for you.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

August 8, 2019 at 11:58 AM
guiowen said...

Isn't this something we've heard before?

Kenny: "What can you expect from the U.S. system? This would never happen in Canada, or any other reasonable country! Reform reform! Drain this swamp!"

August 8, 2019 at 2:49 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
What I would ask you is: Do you believe the WRAL-5 News article was correct in referring to me as a "Durham man"? Yes, or No. Give me a simple response.

Not correct, but also not defamatory.

And if you disagreed, the way to seek relief was by an appeal of the first case, not by starting a new case.

August 4, 2019 at 7:47 AM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

Aha! You admit that the statement that I am a "Durham man" is false. It took WRAL-5 News more than two years and three months to admit it was false and correct it.

Now for the more serious falsehood:
Pick one of the two choices. Do you believe my lawsuit was about: a) the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, or b) the premeditated 2010 incident at Duke University where an attempt was made by Duke staff to have me arrested because I am an African American and a supporter of Mike Nifong? Both is not an option. This is an either/or question.

Regarding the Durham man statement, it was not meant to be malicious. Not all false statements have the same intent. The Durham man falsehood was intended to increase the credibility of the falsehood about the purpose of my Duke lawsuits first filed in 2011.

I humbly await your response to the second question.

August 9, 2019 at 6:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid -- To save you some time, here's a quick definition of a defamatory statement:
"A defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business or trade."

While calling you a "Durham man" is a "false statement of fact", does it expose you to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, cause you to be shunned, or injure you in your business or trade?

Yes, or No. Give me a simple response.

August 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM


Hey, Anony.

The simple response is no... calling me a Durham man does not expose me to hatred, ridicule, contempt, cause shunning, or injure my business/trade. As explained in my previous reply comment, that was not the purpose of the falsehood. Its purpose was to increase the credibility of the really malicious falsehood that my 2011 lawsuits against Duke University et al. were about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. That falsehood made the public believe that my lawsuits were directed at trying to get the criminal charges against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants reinstated.

Answer me this, Anony: What else would be the purpose of a "Mangum supporter" filing a lawsuit over the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case?

The masses were angry with me because they believed (thanks to WRAL-5 News - the only media ever to report on my Duke lawsuits) I was trying to put the Duke Lacrosse defendants in jail. Comprende? Let me know if further elucidation is required.

August 9, 2019 at 6:57 AM
kenhyderal said...

@ Abe 11:58 8-8-19: You've been insulting and attacking Dr. Harr, incessantly, all along. And as for attacking the US Justice System, the majority of Americans agree that it sorely needs reform. Unfortunately in a non-democratic oligarchy like the US needed reform is problematic.

August 9, 2019 at 9:15 AM
guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,
Please stop whining.

August 9, 2019 at 11:44 AM
Dr. Caligari said...

Now for the more serious falsehood:
Pick one of the two choices. Do you believe my lawsuit was about: a) the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, or b) the premeditated 2010 incident at Duke University where an attempt was made by Duke staff to have me arrested because I am an African American and a supporter of Mike Nifong? Both is not an option. This is an either/or question.

Sorry, but "both" is the correct answer. Your Complaint in your lawsuit begins with a long description of the 2006 Lacrosse case; it only gets to the 2010 incident several pages in. So it is literally true that the lawsuit was "about" the Lacrosse case.

August 9, 2019 at 12:26 PM
Dr. Caligari said...

calling me a Durham man does not expose me to hatred, ridicule, contempt, cause shunning, or injure my business/trade.

Then it was not libelous and you should not have included it in your lawsuit.

August 9, 2019 at 12:29 PM
Anonymous said...

That falsehood made the public believe that my lawsuits were directed at trying to get the criminal charges against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants reinstated.

This statement is false. Only a total moron would have reached this conclusion. The charges against the three defendants were dismissed with prejudice, meaning that charges cannot be reinstated. Moreover, as you accurately note in your filing, Duke University has no power to intervene in a criminal case to reinstate charges.

I read the News-Observer statement and agree that it was poorly written because it does not discuss your removal from campus.

However, you falsely accused all News-Observer readers, including me, as being total morons. This accusation is false.

As a result, I seek restorative justice. I ask that you provide me and all readers of the News-Observer with an apology for your unwarranted accusation. In addition, I ask that you amend all legal filings that contained this irresponsible accusation.

I find it appalling that you would make false charges against others when you are complaining about the inaccuracies of others. Demonstrate to your readers that you are not a despicable hypocrite.

August 10, 2019 at 4:20 PM
Nifong Supporter Supporter said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
That falsehood made the public believe that my lawsuits were directed at trying to get the criminal charges against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants reinstated.

This statement is false. Only a total moron would have reached this conclusion. The charges against the three defendants were dismissed with prejudice, meaning that charges cannot be reinstated. Moreover, as you accurately note in your filing, Duke University has no power to intervene in a criminal case to reinstate charges.

I read the News-Observer statement and agree that it was poorly written because it does not discuss your removal from campus.

However, you falsely accused all News-Observer readers, including me, as being total morons. This accusation is false.

As a result, I seek restorative justice. I ask that you provide me and all readers of the News-Observer with an apology for your unwarranted accusation. In addition, I ask that you amend all legal filings that contained this irresponsible accusation.

I find it appalling that you would make false charges against others when you are complaining about the inaccuracies of others. Demonstrate to your readers that you are not a despicable hypocrite.

August 10, 2019 at 4:20 PM


This post leaves no doubt that at least one News-Observer reader is a total moron.

August 11, 2019 at 11:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous guiowen said...
Kenhyderal,
Please stop whining.

August 9, 2019 at 11:44 AM


Hey, gui, mon ami.

kenhyderal does not need me to come to his defense, however, I believe that you are mistaking his averment of his opinion for whining.

August 12, 2019 at 4:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
Now for the more serious falsehood:
Pick one of the two choices. Do you believe my lawsuit was about: a) the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, or b) the premeditated 2010 incident at Duke University where an attempt was made by Duke staff to have me arrested because I am an African American and a supporter of Mike Nifong? Both is not an option. This is an either/or question.

Sorry, but "both" is the correct answer. Your Complaint in your lawsuit begins with a long description of the 2006 Lacrosse case; it only gets to the 2010 incident several pages in. So it is literally true that the lawsuit was "about" the Lacrosse case.


August 9, 2019 at 12:26 PM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

First of all, answer me this: Do I have standing in the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case?

Secondly, from the article there is never any mention about the 2010 incident. No mention of how Duke University plotted to have me arrested and how I was miraculously saved from that fate by Professor James Coleman. There is no mention of that incident in any of the media!!

One final thing, what would be my objective in filing a lawsuit about the Duke Lacrosse case? (Rhetorical: To have criminal charges reinstated against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants.)

August 12, 2019 at 4:42 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
calling me a Durham man does not expose me to hatred, ridicule, contempt, cause shunning, or injure my business/trade.

Then it was not libelous and you should not have included it in your lawsuit.

August 9, 2019 at 12:29 PM


Dr. Caligari, calling me a Durham man may not be malicious when viewed in isolation, but it is nevertheless false and should not have been put in the article. For more than two years WRAL-5 News refused to make a correction... and then it was quite tepid.

Also, legally a statement made to a third party, though not containing hateful or disparaging content, may be considered malicious if it is made with full knowledge of its falsity. (Learned that from studying malicious prosecution.)

August 12, 2019 at 4:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
That falsehood made the public believe that my lawsuits were directed at trying to get the criminal charges against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants reinstated.

This statement is false. Only a total moron would have reached this conclusion. The charges against the three defendants were dismissed with prejudice, meaning that charges cannot be reinstated. Moreover, as you accurately note in your filing, Duke University has no power to intervene in a criminal case to reinstate charges.

I read the News-Observer statement and agree that it was poorly written because it does not discuss your removal from campus.

However, you falsely accused all News-Observer readers, including me, as being total morons. This accusation is false.

As a result, I seek restorative justice. I ask that you provide me and all readers of the News-Observer with an apology for your unwarranted accusation. In addition, I ask that you amend all legal filings that contained this irresponsible accusation.

I find it appalling that you would make false charges against others when you are complaining about the inaccuracies of others. Demonstrate to your readers that you are not a despicable hypocrite.

August 10, 2019 at 4:20 PM


Hey, Anony.

From reading the article, one would deduce that my aim for filing the lawsuit in the Duke Lacrosse case would be to redress a wrong suffered. Most individuals reading the article would surmise that the object of the lawsuit would be to have charges reinstated against the three defendants. Why else file a lawsuit about the Duke Lacrosse case?

Also, you are obviously referring to the online article written by WRAL-5 News and not the News & Observer... of which I've been a subscriber for many years.

Nowhere have I referenced readers of any media as being morons or idiots or imbeciles. It is not my modus operandi to go around insulting and belittling individuals... regardless of their beliefs.

August 12, 2019 at 4:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Nifong Supporter Supporter said...
Anonymous Anonymous said...
That falsehood made the public believe that my lawsuits were directed at trying to get the criminal charges against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants reinstated.

This statement is false. Only a total moron would have reached this conclusion. The charges against the three defendants were dismissed with prejudice, meaning that charges cannot be reinstated. Moreover, as you accurately note in your filing, Duke University has no power to intervene in a criminal case to reinstate charges.

I read the News-Observer statement and agree that it was poorly written because it does not discuss your removal from campus.

However, you falsely accused all News-Observer readers, including me, as being total morons. This accusation is false.

As a result, I seek restorative justice. I ask that you provide me and all readers of the News-Observer with an apology for your unwarranted accusation. In addition, I ask that you amend all legal filings that contained this irresponsible accusation.

I find it appalling that you would make false charges against others when you are complaining about the inaccuracies of others. Demonstrate to your readers that you are not a despicable hypocrite.

August 10, 2019 at 4:20 PM


This post leaves no doubt that at least one News-Observer reader is a total moron.


August 11, 2019 at 11:02 AM


Hey, Nifong double supporter.

As previously noted, Anony credits the News & Observer with the WRAL-5 News online article.

Unlike Trump, who refused to chastise the Greenville crowd yelling "Send her back," I feel compelled to say, "Let's play nice." As the great peacemaker King once said, "Can't we all get along?"

August 12, 2019 at 5:04 AM
Anonymous said...

Why else file a lawsuit about the Duke Lacrosse case?

You could use a lawsuit to get publicity for your objective of rehabilitating Nifong's reputation. That was your primary objective prior to Mangum's arrests.

August 12, 2019 at 10:04 AM
Nifong Supporter Supporter said...



Blogger Nifong Supporter said...



Hey, Nifong double supporter.

As previously noted, Anony credits the News & Observer with the WRAL-5 News online article.

Unlike Trump, who refused to chastise the Greenville crowd yelling "Send her back," I feel compelled to say, "Let's play nice." As the great peacemaker King once said, "Can't we all get along?"

August 12, 2019 at 5:04 AM



Dr. Harr,

I'm afraid that sometimes it's just not possible to sugar coat the truth.


August 13, 2019 at 7:06 PM
Jim Bob Walton said...

Dr. Harr,

For the past several weeks, I have been studying closely your sharlogs and the comments by the posters who follow your blog. Can you tell me why so many of the posters use the word "Supporter" in their names?

August 18, 2019 at 2:24 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)