justice4nifong: Harr v. WRAL-5 News: in Federal Court

Sunday, July 12, 2020

Harr v. WRAL-5 News: in Federal Court

58 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...: Blogger guiowen said...
Sidney,
Are you wasting your time with this libel suit? Why don't you, instead, try to get Cyril Wecht's opinion before a court?

July 10, 2020 at 11:54 AM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

Great minds think similar. As you will realize after reading the libel lawsuit, that is precisely what I did. Dr. Wecht's report is listed as Exhibit S. It ties into my libel lawsuit to show that Defendants are biased in their reporting... in Mangum's case they suppressed the exonerative Dr. Wecht report. In my case, they suppressed writing about the 2010 incident in which Duke tried to arrest me, and when finally writing about the admonishment by Judge Eagles purposely misled by referencing the lawsuit as being about the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case.

So, I guess we can agree that my lawsuit is not a waste of time.; July 12, 2020 at 4:56 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Let's see if I got this right.

The first case that was filed (January 2017) was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The Second claim (filed in May 2018, and apparently never mentioned on this website) was (in YOUR words) "essentially the same lawsuit against the same defendants..." was barred by res judicata.

You then filed an appeal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the previous court's decision on June 4, 2019.

Following the COA decision, in July 2019 you filed a petition for discretionary review, which was denied earlier this year.

Am I missing anything?

What, exactly qualifies this for complaint for federal court? Walt-In-Durham pointed out (way back in 2017) that you do not have "complete diversity" and therefore there is no federal jurisdiction.

July 10, 2020 at 1:38 PM

Hey, Anony.

There's a lot of elucidation that I must do regarding your comment.

First, it wasn't until well into my adulthood that I came to realize that not all judges are individuals of integrity. In actuality, following my legal experiences and insights over the past decade, I've come to believe the opposite.

Judge Bryan Collins was clearly mistaken in his one-page, two-paragraph, four-sentence Order in dismissing my complaint using Rule 12(b)(6). Without doubt I listed two objectionable falsehoods in the Defendants' July 4, 2016 article (one of which they were forced to later correct), and I demonstrated damages such as comments of ridicule, scorn, and threat... not to mention exposure on the hate-site "Shitskin Plantation." Judge Collins didn't rule on fairness, facts, and merits of the case, rather he ruled on a desired outcome... and outcome he could not justify which explains the brevity of his Order.

The second lawsuit was essentially the same as the initial one, however the res judicata doctrine requires that the initial ruling be based on merit. It has always been my contention that Judge Collins' ruling on July 17, 2017 was not based on merit. Ergo, res judicata is not an applicable defense.

The Court of Appeals, I believe, erred by not giving my argument serious consideration, and the denial by the NC Supreme Court is tainted by the fact that the Chief Justice is a Roy Cooper appointee.

What qualifies the case for Federal Court at minimum is the issue of a federal question. Clearly my position is that my Seventh Amendment Right to a trial by a jury (as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution) has been violated. The Motion to Dismiss a case summarily without a chance for adjudication by a jury, is a long-held method to deny plaintiffs (mostly poor and minority) with legitimate complaints from having their day in court. In most of these cases, such a summary judgment is the only guarantee that a wealth and influential, yet guilty, defendant can prevail.

Consider yourself elucidated.; July 12, 2020 at 5:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: The Late Sam Cooke said...
(Hoh! Ah!) I hear something saying (Hoh! Ah!)

(Well don't you know)
That's the sound of Sidney Harr
Working on the libel, compla-aint
That's the sound of Sidney Harr
Working on the libel complaint

All day long he work so hard till the sun is going down
Working on the motions and blogs and wearing, wearing a frown
You hear him moaning his life away
Then you hear somebody say

That's the sound of Sidney Harr
Working on the libel, compla-aint
That's the sound of Sidney Harr
Working on the libel complaint

Can't you hear him singing, mmm (Hoh! Ah!)
He's going to Anson C.I. one of these days
He's going there to see his woman
Who he loves so dear
But meanwhile he gotta work right here

All day long he's singing, mmm (Hoh! Ah!)
His work is so hard
Give him money
He needs money, his work is so hard
Woah ooo
His work is so hard

July 10, 2020 at 2:17 PM

Hey, Late Sam.

Very clever. However, it would be much more impressive if you performed it on audio or audiovisual and put a link to it. Even a cappella, if you can carry a tune, that is.; July 12, 2020 at 5:22 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: (Pronounced Kĕh-'nē 'ĕd-'wérds) said...

Well I heard mister Harr b*tch about her
Well, I heard ol' Sid put her down
Well, I hope Sid Harr will remember
A Durham man don't need him around, anyhow

Sweet home Durham County
Where the skies are so blue
Sweet Home Durham County
Lord, I'm coming home to you

July 10, 2020 at 2:38 PM

Hey, Anony.

A suggestion: Indicate the song of which you are making a parody. Also, a performance would be nice.; July 12, 2020 at 5:24 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal said...
Anonymous 7-9-20 said: "Or are you afraid speaking to a legal expert will only confirm your dishonesty?---------------- Are you suggesting that in speaking to a legal expert, he will be able to justify, to me, the seemingly incoherent and irrational, technicalities that, can and are used as a gatekeeper and why they are so often employed in a "dishonest" way to thwart justice and engineer preferred outcomes. I don't understand your premise how speaking to such an "expert" could indicate dishonesty on my part. That suggestive pejorative seems to be a bogus and gratuitous charge simply thrown out by you,

July 10, 2020 at 5:14 PM

Hey, kenhyderal.

Well worth repeating.; July 12, 2020 at 5:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Read Marina’s statement.
At this stage, the focus is exclusively on technical matters.
Read my statement. Speak to a Canadian lawyer.

Have that lawyer explain to you in small words you can understand what Marina’s statement means.

Consistently calling these rules of law “incoherent and irrational technicalities” used as a “gatekeeper” because you apparently don’t understand them does not make it so. Calling them that because you don’t like the outcome and need an excuse is what makes you dishonest.

July 10, 2020 at 8:51 PM
kenhyderal said...
@ Anonymous 7-10-20 8:51 PM...…………….. Marina gave the rule. Why then don't you stand in for this Canadian Lawyer and try justifying to me the protocol? Can you show it's rationale? Everyone who needs to know and who has the certain ability to act and correct this wrongful conviction, thanks to Dr. Harr, knows about Dr. Wecht's report. Are you saying they are bound by rules that necessitate the innocent person must wait, perhaps indefinitely, for justice. Of course I don't like the outcome and neither should anyone who thinks that no innocent person should be wrongly held. There can be no excuses. What's dishonest is claiming that because of these rules nothing can be done.

July 11, 2020 at 4:21 PM; July 12, 2020 at 5:29 AM
The Late Sam Cooke said...: Sid Harr said:
“Hey, Late Sam.

Very clever. However, it would be much more impressive if you performed it on audio or audiovisual and put a link to it. Even a cappella, if you can carry a tune, that is.“

Indeed. It would be impressive. I’m dead.; July 12, 2020 at 6:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny - We don’t know each other and I’m no expert on Canadian law. Hence the suggestion to speak to a Canadian legal expert. And yes, IF Sidney keeps filing Malicious Prosecution claims, the courts are bound by rules to adjudicate them. This indeed means that they will examine these so-called “technicalities”, such as the statute of limitations and determine whether they apply. That you and Sid find this difficult to understand only proves that Crystal Mangum needs a lawyer.; July 12, 2020 at 6:55 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 7-12-20 6:55 AM------------------And I don't know any Canadian Lawyers. I have never had occasion to need one This situation though reminds me of the predatory American Insurance Business where they hire Lawyers to write legalese Insurance contracts containing the so called "fine print" intelligible only to other Lawyers, insuring they can always show some sort of loophole allowing them to escape liability. It seems thus with the case of denying justice to Crystal something they fervently wish to escape. Statutes of limitation I understand but even if Crystal had paid for a Lawyer who did everything, as artificially prescribed, they would have come up with some other violation to deny her. Meanwhile those helping her would be out what they paid. She already had five Lawyers who did absolutely nothing for her but simply took the States money. Dr. Harr has proven her innocence and those holding her need to set her free. Make the rules work to achieve the just outcome; July 12, 2020 at 8:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid hasn't proven anything. He has several opinions (including his own). These opionions have not been proven. Calling these opionions "proof" is incorrect.; July 13, 2020 at 6:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Am I reading this correctly? The only claim that you state WRAL violated were your 1st amendment rights? Where in your document do you provide evidence that this occurred?

The majority of this document is about the actions of Wake County Superior Court and Judge Collins - who aren’t identified as defendants.

Can you recite the first amendment, Sid? What are the first 5 words of the first amendment? How does this apply to any action by WRAL?; July 13, 2020 at 4:02 PM
Anonymous said...: My point, Sid, is that a potential plaintiff can only state a cognizable claim for a first amendment violation where some sort of state action applies that abridges it.

A two minute google search would have explained this.

WRAL is not a state actor.; July 13, 2020 at 4:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal - You need look no further than this document to see why Crystal Mangum desperately needs a lawyer and Sid needs to do nothing more than provide her moral and financial support.; July 13, 2020 at 6:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: It is not an opinion that Daye's death was not a homicide, it's a fact. His cause of death is clearly laid out in the Duke Medical Records. You prove opinions with facts. The facts are clear to anyone who has read the medical records. Even lay-persons Probably even you, if you were only open-minded. Dr. Nichols opinion has no facts to back it up. The Jury who convicted Crystal of murder, thanks to Lawyer Meier, never heard any of the facts only the unsubstantiated opinion of ME Nichols a coroner who had previously been censured.; July 13, 2020 at 8:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Old ground, Kenhyderal. Go back and read their the comments of Walt, Lance, A Lawyer and others - I’m not rehashing them here. Mangum’s culpability in the death of Reginald Daye is what put her in prison.; July 14, 2020 at 6:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny - Do you agree that WRAL violated Sid’s first amendment rights?; July 14, 2020 at 6:07 AM
Anonymous said...: The fact Sid thinks that attaching the Dr. Wecht report will accomplish anything is one of the most laughable things he's done.

It's been explained to him exactly how to best help Crystal, and he refuses to do any of it. He's clearly not interested in helping her.

He was told the alleged lie by Milton was huge and could get a new trial, he was told what to do - so, since he had something that might help, he immediately made excuses for why it wouldn't work and did nothing to help.

He's a sad, bitter man, who wants to keep Crystal locked up so she's a captive audience for his nonsense.; July 14, 2020 at 8:34 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: Go back and read their the comments of Walt, Lance, A Lawyer and others - I’m not rehashing them here. Mangum’s culpability in the death of Reginald Daye is what put her in prison"--------------- Where have they gone; now that Dr. Wecht has shot down their reliance on a Welch president ( Dr. Nichol's flippant "she stabbed him he died") and his speculative assertion, in court under oath, that Daye died of "an infection or some sort of other catastrophic illness" (undocumented anywhere) or Dr. Roberts halfhearted and lame endorsement. I knew you couldn't be open-minded.; July 14, 2020 at 8:35 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: Do you agree that WRAL violated Sid’s first amendment rights?----- Absolutely. But let's have a court decide.; July 14, 2020 at 8:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid, you should take a page from the other protestors in Durham and camp out in front of the courthouse until they listen to you.; July 14, 2020 at 8:37 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Read the first amendment. I realize that,because of context, you misunderstand these things,but you really should read it.; July 14, 2020 at 11:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal -- Since you're Canadian, you may not be familiar with the First Amendment.

Here is what it states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now that you know what the First Amendment states -- Please explain how WRAL violated this amendment WRT Sid.

Sid, by all means, jump in here and help Kenny out.; July 14, 2020 at 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Not falling into your Kafka trap, Kenhyderal. Those arguments by Walt and others are just as valid today as they were when they were made. That your argument is just as coherent NOW as it was THEN speaks volumes.; July 14, 2020 at 12:56 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 7-14-20 12:53: In Canada we have freedom of speech guaranteed by a charter of rights and freedoms but unlike the First Amendment that does not allow us to verbally abuse other Canadians.; July 14, 2020 at 3:44 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous The Late Sam Cooke said...
Sid Harr said:
“Hey, Late Sam.

Very clever. However, it would be much more impressive if you performed it on audio or audiovisual and put a link to it. Even a cappella, if you can carry a tune, that is.“

Indeed. It would be impressive. I’m dead.

July 12, 2020 at 6:43 AM

Hey, Late Sam.

I am aware that the iconic balladeer Sam Cooke is dead. I'm old enough to remember when he passed. I was directing my recommendation about performing to you, Late Sam... the living person who sent the comment using the sobriquet "The Late Sam Cooke." Like you, I do not believe in ghosts.; July 14, 2020 at 4:11 PM
Anonymous said...: That’s not an answer, Kenny. And, shockingly, Sid isn’t helping.; July 14, 2020 at 4:15 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid hasn't proven anything. He has several opinions (including his own). These opionions have not been proven. Calling these opionions "proof" is incorrect.

July 13, 2020 at 6:17 AM

Hey, Anony.

If I'm not mistaken, kenhyderal has pointed out repeatedly that my opinions are backed by facts... some from prosecution discovery. Crystal Mangum's innocence is backed by the report by world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht which determined that the manner of Daye's death was an accident... not a homicide. Ergo, Crystal Mangum is absolutely innocent in the death of Reginald Daye.

Capiche?; July 14, 2020 at 4:18 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 7-14-20 12:56 Huh?? B.t.w. have you read The Trial? Crystal's experience is akin that of to Josef K. and the incompetent Lawyer Dr. Huld akin to Meier.; July 14, 2020 at 4:19 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Am I reading this correctly? The only claim that you state WRAL violated were your 1st amendment rights? Where in your document do you provide evidence that this occurred?

The majority of this document is about the actions of Wake County Superior Court and Judge Collins - who aren’t identified as defendants.

Can you recite the first amendment, Sid? What are the first 5 words of the first amendment? How does this apply to any action by WRAL?

July 13, 2020 at 4:02 PM

Hey, Anony.

First, I think you misread my complaint because paragraph 2 clearly states that the State Court violated my Seventh Amendment Right to trial by a jury. My complaint is that the judge in the initial case Bryan Collins ruled against me on a desired outcome rather than on facts, fairness, and merits of the case.

The use of a summary judgment to dismiss a case is often used by judges to enable defendants favored by the judge to prevail when the complaint against them are strong. Many African Americans have been denied their day in court and chance at justice. So it is the Seventh and not the First Amendment that is at issue in my libel/defamation case against WRAL-5 News.

I don't know where the First Amendment came into the picture.; July 14, 2020 at 4:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Opinions of, course, are like eyeballs. Almost everyone has at least one.

Dr. Wecht did not perform an autopsy, or in any way views the decedent. He made a decision based upon the documents he had in front of him. As talented as he his, that still makes his opinion just that....an opinion.

What I (and the rest of the few people that bother to read your blog) have yet to see is you do anything useful with Dr. Wecht’s opinion.

How about this - why don’t you reach out to Dr. Wecht and ask him what to do with his report? Why didn’t you ask him this in the first place?; July 14, 2020 at 4:28 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
My point, Sid, is that a potential plaintiff can only state a cognizable claim for a first amendment violation where some sort of state action applies that abridges it.

A two minute google search would have explained this.

WRAL is not a state actor.

July 13, 2020 at 4:15 PM

Hey, Anony.

Your premise is wrong. My lawsuit is about violation of my Seventh Amendment Right, not my First.; July 14, 2020 at 4:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Really? You DID write this document, correct? I mean, you state in the first sentence that your first amendment rights were violated by the defendant.

And the State Supreme Court is not a defendant here. How can WRAL be held responsible for the actions of the court?; July 14, 2020 at 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, you wrote it. I’m just commented on the document you wrote. See what I’m talking about Kenny?; July 14, 2020 at 4:38 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Kenhyderal - You need look no further than this document to see why Crystal Mangum desperately needs a lawyer and Sid needs to do nothing more than provide her moral and financial support.

July 13, 2020 at 6:26 PM

Hey, Anony.

Keep in mind that Crystal Mangum had been represented by four different attorneys who allowed her to be convicted of second-degree murder in a case in which the manner of death was an accident... not a homicide. Keep in mind that Mangum was represented by attorneys post-conviction who failed to timely file or advise her that she had grounds for a civil complaint of malicious prosecution on the Larceny of Chose in Action charge.

Also, keep in mind that attorneys from the NAACP and ACLU, as well as innocence projects, have refused to represent her. Even attorneys from the private sector have refused to represent her.

A lawyer will not solve Mangum's problem. What Crystal Mangum needs is proper media coverage. Since November 1, 2019, I began notifying media about Dr. Wecht's report, yet there's been nothing in the media or online about it... except on this blog site. CBS-17 even did a twenty-minute Skype interview with Dr. Wecht which has been shelved... if not destroyed. The media is heavily involved in the conspiracy to keep Crystal Mangum wrongly incarcerated.; July 14, 2020 at 4:38 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
The fact Sid thinks that attaching the Dr. Wecht report will accomplish anything is one of the most laughable things he's done.

It's been explained to him exactly how to best help Crystal, and he refuses to do any of it. He's clearly not interested in helping her.

He was told the alleged lie by Milton was huge and could get a new trial, he was told what to do - so, since he had something that might help, he immediately made excuses for why it wouldn't work and did nothing to help.

He's a sad, bitter man, who wants to keep Crystal locked up so she's a captive audience for his nonsense.

July 14, 2020 at 8:34 AM

Hey, Anony.

Bringing up Dr. Wecht's report in my lawsuit against WRAL is significant because it demonstrates media bias... a willingness by media to suppress stories that are favorable to Crystal Mangum. Dr. Wecht's report basically exonerates Crystal in Reginald Daye's death.

Keep in mind also that Judge Ridgeway already denied the MAR based on Milton Walker's admissions of perjury in a phone call with Crystal. Don't think pursuing the Walker route would bear any fruit. Better off with Dr. Wecht's report... and trying to get it before the public.; July 14, 2020 at 4:47 PM
Anonymous said...: C’mon, Sid...Tell the truth - Did you use your Harr v. Duke lawsuit as a template and forget to remove the “first amendment” part?; July 14, 2020 at 4:49 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid, you should take a page from the other protestors in Durham and camp out in front of the courthouse until they listen to you.

July 14, 2020 at 8:37 AM

Hey, Anony.

I could stand on my head wearing a tutu in front of the courthouse and I would be ignored... either that or arrested on a trumped up charge of trespassing similar to what happened on the Duke University Law School on April 14, 2010.

Keep in mind that the State is not only after Crystal Mangum, but it is also after me.

Additionally, the media has no problem focusing on others such as Wildin Acosta or Samuel Bruno (who are from Honduras and Mexico and faced deportation). People in Durham will even march for justice for Vanessa Guillen (a murder victim in Texas whose suspected killer committed suicide). But when it comes to Crystal Mangum who was born and raised in Durham and went to school in Durham, there is absolutely no support for her.; July 14, 2020 at 4:59 PM
Anonymous said...: You bother to read the lolsuit you filed? The first sentence states “Jurisdiction in this case is established by Federal Question 28 U.S.C. 1331 (specifically the Plaintiff alleges that his First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech and Expression were violated by Defendants)”; July 14, 2020 at 5:02 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Kenhyderal -- Since you're Canadian, you may not be familiar with the First Amendment.

Here is what it states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now that you know what the First Amendment states -- Please explain how WRAL violated this amendment WRT Sid.

Sid, by all means, jump in here and help Kenny out.

July 14, 2020 at 12:53 PM

Hey, Anony.

As I previously stated, I don't know how the First Amendment got into the conversation. Re-read paragraph number 2. It clearly talks about the Seventh Amendment Right to a trial by jury. The defendants and the judges don't want my lawsuit against WRAL to be determined by a jury because an impartial jury would rule in my favor.; July 14, 2020 at 5:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Keep telling us you don’t know how the First Amendment got into the conversation, Sid. Everyone else, just read the FIRST SENTENCE of Sid’s complaint.

This is not making you look good, pal.; July 14, 2020 at 5:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny and Sid: only the government can infringe on someone’s 1st Amendment rights. The a Constitution limits Government action, not private entities. Are y’all really this stupid?; July 14, 2020 at 5:15 PM
Anonymous said...: WRAL didn’t violate your 7th Amendment rights - again they are not a state actor.; July 14, 2020 at 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: How can WRAL violate your 7th amendment rights?; July 14, 2020 at 5:40 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Keep telling us you don’t know how the First Amendment got into the conversation, Sid. Everyone else, just read the FIRST SENTENCE of Sid’s complaint.

This is not making you look good, pal.

July 14, 2020 at 5:09 PM

Hey, Anony.

The mistake is simply explained and a commenter even suggested it. What happened is that I used a previous draft of a federal court filing as a template and failed to correct the statement that included the First Amendment. This template was definitely taken from my lawsuit against Duke University for its discrimination against me for being a Nifong supporter ahd having secular views that were unpopular.

Simply explained away as carelessness on my part, but hardly fatal.; July 15, 2020 at 4:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
How can WRAL violate your 7th amendment rights?

July 14, 2020 at 5:40 PM

Hey, Anony.

WRAL libeled and defamed me. Judge Collins violated my Seventh Amendment Right to a jury trial by summary judgment dismissing my case without cause. It is a procedure used to enable weak defendants to prevail against strong plaintiffs when the court's desired outcome favors the defendant.

Need I say more?; July 15, 2020 at 4:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

If Judge Collins violated your Seventh Amendment rights, why aren’t you suing him?; July 15, 2020 at 5:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid,

If Judge Collins violated your Seventh Amendment rights, why aren’t you suing him?

July 15, 2020 at 5:20 AM

Hey, Anony.

Offhand there are two reasons that come to mind: (1) I don't want to waste my time; and (2) I'm not a glutton for punishment.

Even a complaint with the Judicial Standards Commission, which I've considered, would be a waste of time. That organization is only for show... to give the appearance of judicial oversight.; July 15, 2020 at 6:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Certainly no more waste of time than this garbage.; July 15, 2020 at 7:20 AM
Anonymous said...: "WRAL libeled and defamed me. Judge Collins violated my Seventh Amendment Right to a jury trial by summary judgment dismissing my case without cause. It is a procedure used to enable weak defendants to prevail against strong plaintiffs when the court's desired outcome favors the defendant.
Need I say more?

Well, yeah....The only actionable item you have against WRAL is alleged libel and defamation. On the federal level, there are no criminal defamation or insult laws in the United States.

How do you justify filing this lawsuit at a federal level when the defendants didn't commit any of the alleged violations of your constitutional rights?; July 15, 2020 at 7:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

I have seen nothing in your litigation track record that suggests that you don’t want to waste your time and that you are not a glutton for punishment.; July 15, 2020 at 10:23 AM
guiowen said...: Sid,
After the 7/14/2020,8:36 a.m. comment, I cannot imagine how you feel that Kenny's comments help you with anything,let alone a lawsuit.; July 16, 2020 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid -- It appears that this case has been selected for mediation....What does that mean for you?

It does seem odd -- I thought only civil cases were eligible for mediation.; July 17, 2020 at 6:50 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid -- It appears that this case has been selected for mediation....What does that mean for you?

It does seem odd -- I thought only civil cases were eligible for mediation.

July 17, 2020 at 6:50 AM

Hey, Anony.

You are on your toes. I just learned about it the other day.

First of all, my libel/defamation lawsuit is civil.

Not being an attorney, I am not totally sure how it works, but my sense is that a mediator (an attorney for a least eight years of practice and who is certified as a mediator) to mediate a resolution between both parties. I am still trying to learn more about the process myself. Will keep you posted.; July 17, 2020 at 7:06 AM
Nifong Supporter Supporter said...: Be careful Dr. Harr. The mediator will use Jedi mind tricks in his attempt to make you drop your case.; July 18, 2020 at 5:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Why didn't you post my comment?; July 18, 2020 at 7:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr -- You are responsible for your share of the mediator's fee unless you file a motion with the court to be relieved of the obligation to pay.

Keep in mind, the court will not rule on this motion upon completion of the case, and the court will take into consideration the outcome of the case when making this ruling.; July 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...: More info regarding mediated cases here:

http://www.nced.uscourts.gov/pdfs/ADRrules.pdf; July 20, 2020 at 11:15 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: You sued WRAL and lost. You can't file a new lawsuit against them based on the same claim.; July 28, 2020 at 7:07 PM

Sunday, July 12, 2020

Harr v. WRAL-5 News: in Federal Court

58 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me