Friday, March 5, 2021

Harr v. WRAL-5 News, et. al.: Harr's Initial Brief -- Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

31 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Damn, and you know SCOTUS only did that because Duke paid them off cause this ruling screws Crystal.

It's amazing how high and deep the anti-Crystal hatred goes - it's now reached the Supreme Court!

February 26, 2021 at 7:13 AM


Hey, Anony.

Hatred towards Crystal Mangum is, I believe, the culmination of slanted media coverage. I do not believe it has reached the Supreme Court.

March 5, 2021 at 8:16 AM
Nifong Supporter said...

Blogger Nifong Supporter said...

Dr. Caligari said...
Dr. Harr:

The U.S. Supreme Court today unanimously held that a dismissal of a case based on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion constitutes a "judgment on the merits" for purposes of barring a subsequent suit.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-546_7mip.pdf

Please keep this in mind in your future court arguments.

February 25, 2021 at 1:20 PM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

Thanks for the info and link. I've come to realize that the Rule 12(b)(6) may be considered a defense on merit, but my chief argument has to do with Rule 56 - Summary Judgment. The federal Rule 56 is much fairer than the State as it requires that the Court put in writing a reason for granting or denying a motion to dismiss.

The main problem with Judge Bryan Collins' one-page/two-paragraph/four-sentence Order is that it lacks a reason for the decision. A Summary Judgment lacking a reason is one lacking accountability.

March 4, 2021 at 4:21 AM

March 5, 2021 at 8:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...

Nifong Supporter Supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

Have you discussed with kenhyderal his secret plan to win a new trial for Crystal? This is incredible news.

February 27, 2021 at 8:45 PM


Hey, Nifong double-Supporter.

No. There are very few people, including Crystal, who know about the Secret Plan. As soon as I am cleared by the person in charge of the project, I will divulge it on this blog site. Hopefully it will be soon.

March 4, 2021 at 4:26 AM

March 5, 2021 at 8:31 AM
Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous said...
Regarding your contact with the various Innocence projects:

1) If you want to be taken seriously STOP using the J4N letterhead. Create a separate J4Mangum if you wish, but STOP using this one. I can pretty much guarantee that as soon as it's seen, it's discarded as trash without the contents even being read. With your numerous frivolous lawsuits, you've forever tainted this committee name.

2) It is NOT about you, Sid. You have NO STANDING in this case. As such, no one should have to give you any time to discuss it. They should, however, objhectively review the Wecht docoumentation and discuss it with Crystal Mangum or her legal representative. Remove yourself from the picture.

Do yourself a favor and reach out to the people who were eventually successful in freeing Ronnie Long (https://www.facebook.com/FreeRonnieLong , freeronnielong@gmail.com ), and ask them for guidance.

March 3, 2021 at 9:47 AM


Hey, Anony.

Thank you for the well-meaning and sage advice.

RE: Suggestion (1): My blog site was named for Mike Nifong to honor the courage he showed in pursuing a prosecution he believed to have merit despite its unpopularity among the media-misled general public. I cannot, in good conscience, abandon him like other Durhamians have because of misguided beliefs about him. With truth and time, the masses will surely come to hold him in higher esteem. For example, answer me this: For which Durham District Attorney do you have greater respect: (a) one who prosecutes an unpopular case because of his convictions regarding justice; or (b) one who is aware of the absolute innocence of a wrongly convicted female defendant and refuses to even be confronted by the truths of her innocence because absolution of her guilt would be unpopular? The former is tha Nifong model and the latter the present Durham D. A. Satana Deberry. She has ignored me since sworn into office. Like Roy Cooper, she doesn't want to be confronted by the truths of Crystal Mangum's innocence.

RE: Suggestion (2): I would respectfully disagree with you that it is not about me... especially since I am Crystal Mangum's fiancé. All I've done is brought evidence, including Dr. Wecht's report, to the attention of government officials. They don't want to discuss or consider it because their actions in prosecuting and convicting Crystal for a crime that was not committed is purely vindictive as payback for her role as accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case. If I remove myself from the picture, Mangum's biggest asset and advocate will be missing.

As far as Ronnie Long goes, he was extremely lucky to be freed as his case was reheard en banc... quite rare. It never should have gone as far as it did, but he is an African American, which works to his disadvantage. To his advantage, he had the media, civil rights/social justice organizations, the public, and innocence projects on his side. Crystal Mangum doesn't enjoy support from anyone... not even the NAACP, the ACLU or the NC Legislative Black Caucus. And court rulings in her cases have been atrocious. The fact is that I gave the principle defense attorney for Ronnie Long, Jamie Lau, a full packet of exculpatory evidence -- including Dr. Wecht's report -- and he has only ignored me; which is not surprising since he is on the faculty of Duke University School of Law and is a director of its innocence project.

Anyway, thanks for your suggestions. I may look up the Facebook page for Mr. Long.


March 4, 2021 at 4:53 AM

March 5, 2021 at 8:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
I've come to realize that the Rule 12(b)(6) may be considered a defense on merit, but my chief argument has to do with Rule 56 - Summary Judgment. The federal Rule 56 is much fairer than the State as it requires that the Court put in writing a reason for granting or denying a motion to dismiss.

Summary Judgment under Rule 56 and dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) are two different procedures. The rules applicable to one don't apply to the other. The requirements of Rule 56 don't apply to to a dismissal under Rule 12 (b)(6) even in federal court. Moreover, as you recognize, the state Rule 56 is different from the federal rule.

The main problem with Judge Bryan Collins' one-page/two-paragraph/four-sentence Order is that it lacks a reason for the decision. A Summary Judgment lacking a reason is one lacking accountability.

(a) It was an order granting a motion to dismiss, not an order granting summary judgment, so it wouldn't require an explanation even in federal court. Moreover, as noted above, the requirement for an explanation doesn't exist in state court for either kind of motion. Maybe it should, but that's not an issue you can raise on appeal; the courts decide based on the rules as they currently exist.

March 4, 2021 at 9:01 AM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

I am not an attorney, but it is my understanding that a Motion to Dismiss, for all intents and purposes, is a summary judgment. Regardless, in almost all Orders, a judge can at least come up with some argument in support of his/her ruling. Judge Thomas Schroeder, in granting Duke's Motion to Dismiss my 2010 complaint, issued an Order that was eight or nine pages in length. Judge Bryan Collins, especially in his taking into advisement, should have given some reason. The reason he didn't give a reason is because there was none.

March 5, 2021 at 9:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
No Sid, it's most definitely NOT about you. You weren't a witness, you weren't involved in the coourt case in any official capacity, and you cannot represent Crystal Mangum in a court of law.

Interjecting yourself as an intermediary is hurting Crystal Mangum's changes of getting anyone to help her in any official capacity.

March 4, 2021 at 12:24 PM


Hey, Anony.

True, I can't represent Crystal Mangum in a court of law... she can represent herself Pro Se. I help her prepare her briefs because she has no access to legal research, internet, keyboard, or any legal assistance. I tried repeatedly to get legal counsel for Crystal, but have been ignored by NAACP, ACLU, Innocence projects, and attorneys in private practice. Those attorneys who have represented her have undermined her and allowed her to receive negative outcomes... most notably being convicted for a crime of murder that never was committed.

March 5, 2021 at 9:09 AM
Anonymous said...

"I am not an attorney, but it is my understanding that a Motion to Dismiss, for all intents and purposes, is a summary judgment."

A simple google search would correct this misunderstanding.

March 5, 2021 at 9:17 AM
Dr. Caligari said...

I am not an attorney, but it is my understanding that a Motion to Dismiss, for all intents and purposes, is a summary judgment.

Wrong. They are governed by different rules, involve different procedures and are judged by different standards.

Regardless, in almost all Orders, a judge can at least come up with some argument in support of his/her ruling.

Can? Certainly.

Should? You and I agree on that.

Required to on pain of appellate reversal? Not in most instances.

March 5, 2021 at 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...

-M actually means it was assigned to a Magistrate, not a Federal Judge. The - in Federal File numbers is either followed by M for Magistrate, or the initials of the assigned Judge.

You really need to do basic research if you want people to even consider taking you seriously.

Your appeal will be summarily dismissed.

March 6, 2021 at 5:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
-M actually means it was assigned to a Magistrate, not a Federal Judge. The - in Federal File numbers is either followed by M for Magistrate, or the initials of the assigned Judge.

You really need to do basic research if you want people to even consider taking you seriously.

Your appeal will be summarily dismissed.

March 6, 2021 at 5:20 AM


Hey, Anony.

It has been my understanding that all cases filed in Federal Court are first assigned to a magistrate judge with a mandate to provide a recommendation to the federal district judge. This is the first time in my filings in federal court that an M has been placed after the file number.

You may be correct, but I would like your assertion regarding the M to be corroborated by a rule of some sort. Please provide a source for your information. Until then, I cannot accept your interpretation as correct. Thanks.

March 8, 2021 at 5:29 AM
Anonymous said...

"It has been my understanding that all cases filed in Federal Court are first assigned to a magistrate judge with a mandate to provide a recommendation to the federal district judge."

Shockingly, you misunderstand the role of the magistrate judge.

https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/publications/JudicialSystem.pdf?KM1g8mpmFG1onJE1GIYjsbikBbTYJcP1

March 8, 2021 at 8:37 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"It has been my understanding that all cases filed in Federal Court are first assigned to a magistrate judge with a mandate to provide a recommendation to the federal district judge."

Shockingly, you misunderstand the role of the magistrate judge.

https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/publications/JudicialSystem.pdf?KM1g8mpmFG1onJE1GIYjsbikBbTYJcP1

March 8, 2021 at 8:37 AM



Hey, Anony.

The link you provided was for the North Carolina Judicial System. To refresh your memory, my case is currently in the Federal Court system, so that link is inapplicable. Thanks anyway.

March 10, 2021 at 4:09 AM
Anonymous said...

A 1 minute google search would have lead you to this:

https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/FBA-White-Paper-2016-pdf-2.pdf

So, shockingly, you STILL misunderstand the role of the Magistrate Judge (at either state or federal level).

Perhaps you should start asking Kenny (who appears to be an expert Google user) about any information BEFORE forming an opinion about something you obviously know nothing about.

March 10, 2021 at 7:46 AM
guiowen said...

Sidney,
Are you all right?

March 19, 2021 at 9:52 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Sidney,
Are you all right?

March 19, 2021 at 9:52 PM


Hey, gui, mon ami.

Thanks for your concerns. I am doing fine, thank you.

I have been extremely busy. Sending out plenty of letters and working on another shar-video, and assisting Crystal with her lawsuit against the media. Just getting the defendants served a Summons and Complaint, for example, has been a tremendous undertaking.

Hope to post something on the blog site soon.

March 20, 2021 at 5:17 AM
Anonymous said...

The statute of limitations has already passed in Crystal’s lawsuit against WRAL. Why bother?

March 20, 2021 at 10:56 AM
Anonymous said...

Interested to hear how you and Crystal are going to get around the statute of limitations. It's been brought up several times, but you've never commented on it.

March 23, 2021 at 8:23 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Interested to hear how you and Crystal are going to get around the statute of limitations. It's been brought up several times, but you've never commented on it.

March 23, 2021 at 8:23 AM


Hey, Anony.

Sorry about not commenting recently, but have been extremely busy trying to complete a shar-video and writing letters.

Refreshing to see that you agree that WRAL-5 News has no defense on merits of the case and must rely on a technicality... such as statute of limitation.

Because a Response by defendants has not been filed, I don't know defense will be used, so it makes no sense to cross the bridge before you get to it.

After delaying service of Summons and Complaint, a Response should be filed within approximately one month.

March 23, 2021 at 7:02 PM
Anonymous said...

You missing the Statute of Limitations and them using it as a defense has nothing to do with your case having merit or not.

As has repeatedly been explained to you, all of your nonsense filings, both on your behalf, and on Crystal's behalf, have all had zero merit.

You either have no idea what you are doing, or you don't care. You just want to keep Crystal locked up as long as possible, because you are worried when she gets out she won't have the time of day for you, married or not.

If you wanted to help her, it's been explained how. Your refusal to do that shows helping her isn't your goal, keeping her a captive audience is.

March 24, 2021 at 7:36 AM
Anonymous said...

As someone wisely noted, the term legal technicality does not have a legal definition and is often simply used to denote any portion of the law that interferes with the outcome desired by the user of the term.

When the period of time specified in a statute of limitations passes, the statute of limitations provides an absolute defense to a legal claim.

WRAL has no need to to provide any "defense on merits of the case". The statute of limitations has passed.

March 24, 2021 at 8:45 AM
kenhyderal said...

Cowardly anonymous posters, like the one of March 24th 7:36, have not a shred of decency. Both Dr. Harr and Crystal Mangum are decent and loving individuals and to impugn their motives and maliciously speculate about them, entirely out of ill-will, is unkind, despicable and deranged. Show a little love in your heart.

March 28, 2021 at 11:54 AM
guiowen said...

Kenny,
The poster whom you so criticize is trying to help Sidney, giving him some good advice. You fail to understand this (clearly because of context) and take this as an occasion to whine. I try to cover your back, but your incessant whining makes this almost impossible for me.
PLEASE check with me before posting any more messages!

March 29, 2021 at 11:31 AM
kenhyderal said...

@ Guiowen: Check paragraph three, then. Offering advice, along with malicious and hurtful comments is incompatible with any sincere effort to advise.

March 31, 2021 at 10:00 AM
guiowen said...

Kenny,
As usual, because of context, yo misunderstand what people say. People give helpful advise, but become exasperated when the recipients of this advise refuse,over and over, to accept it. You're like a little boy who, when scolded by the teacher who has been protecting him,goes home and tells his parents ta the teacher hates him.

April 1, 2021 at 7:47 AM
Anonymous said...

Here you go Sid -- Maybe you (I mean Crystal) can find something here to file a lolsuit about.

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2021/04/01/15-years-ago-duke-hate-crime-hoax-was-peddled-by-media-and-racial-justice-reformers/

You're welcome.

April 1, 2021 at 12:42 PM
kenhyderal said...

Readers in response to Anonymous' reference to Bader's artilce See Dr. Harr's response to Bader's highly inaccurate and biased article.

April 2, 2021 at 8:28 PM
Anonymous said...

Good news ... now Sid can file yet another frivolous defamation suit and keep pretending to Crystal he's trying to do something other than keep her captive for him.

April 3, 2021 at 5:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Here you go Sid -- Maybe you (I mean Crystal) can find something here to file a lolsuit about.

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2021/04/01/15-years-ago-duke-hate-crime-hoax-was-peddled-by-media-and-racial-justice-reformers/

You're welcome.

April 1, 2021 at 12:42 PM


Hey, Anony.

As kenhyderal alluded to, please return to the article and review the comments section in which a thread has been started on the false statements in attorney Bader's article.

I am grateful for you to bringing my attention to the Bader article. It is a link, such as yours, that helps keep me informed as I would otherwise not have seen it and had the opportunity to timely comment on it.

April 3, 2021 at 5:03 AM
Anonymous said...

Interesting note -- Someone has claimed in the comments section of the Minding the Campus article that the defense Mangnum (well, Sidney) is using is the same defense Derek Chauvin is raising in his trial.

Thoughts?

April 3, 2021 at 4:00 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Good news ... now Sid can file yet another frivolous defamation suit and keep pretending to Crystal he's trying to do something other than keep her captive for him.

April 3, 2021 at 5:02 AM


Hey, Anony.

Good news? Yes, but not in the way you think. There are no grounds upon which to file a defamation lawsuit against the author of the "15 Years ago..." article as he merely stated the truth. The truth in his one-sentence paragraph being that WRAL-5 News stated that Daye's demise was a stabbing death. The author, an attorney, was misled, along with the general public, by WRAL to believe that Mangum's stab wound was responsible for Daye's death. The fact that the author repeated a false statement made by a media source - and without apparent malice - I do not believe is actionable in the courts.

What makes the "15 Years ago..." story good news is that it justifies grounds for Mangum filing her lawsuit against WRAL. Rest assured that it will be mentioned in her Reply.

To date a Response has not been received by defendants, but their 30-day period by which to file is drawing near.

April 4, 2021 at 3:42 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Interesting note -- Someone has claimed in the comments section of the Minding the Campus article that the defense Mangnum (well, Sidney) is using is the same defense Derek Chauvin is raising in his trial.

Thoughts?

April 3, 2021 at 4:00 PM


Hey, Anony.

That is absolutely correct. We are both averring that the medical examiner got the manner of death of the decedent victim incorrect... further alleging that in both cases the manner should have been an accident instead of homicide.

The difference is that world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril H. Wecht supports Mangum's contention that the manner of death in Daye's case was an accident and not a homicide.

The similarities in both cases, With differing interpretations, is that they both had intervening causes. In Mangum's case, the stab wound she inflicted was on the mend when the intervening action of an errant esophageal intubation for a condition unrelated to wound resulted in Daye's brain-death which led to his subsequent elective removal from life-support -- directly causing his death.

In the Chauvin/Floyd case, Floyd may have had a slew of medical problems, including hypertension, heart disease, and hypothetically let's say terminal cancer. However, it was the intervening action of Officer Chauvin placing his knee on Floyd's neck for more than nine minutes while he was prone, handcuffed, and physically restrained by other officers, that resulted in his death.

What both cases have in common is that the intervening actions (errant esophageal intubation in Mangum's case and knee on the neck in Chauvin/Floyd's case) was responsible for the deaths of Daye and Floyd.

Comprende? Let me know if further elucidation is required.

April 4, 2021 at 3:57 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)