justice4nifong: MANGUM v. KINSLEY, DHHS: Filed in Federal Court on February 15, 2022

Friday, February 18, 2022

MANGUM v. KINSLEY, DHHS: Filed in Federal Court on February 15, 2022

124 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

It seems as though several exhibits are not being displayed in this blog. Because the text of the lawsuit brief is intact and most are visible, I will not pull the blog and instead continue to try and troubleshoot the problem.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

As you were.; February 18, 2022 at 8:39 AM
Anonymous said...: The fact you are still talking about the Felony Murder rule is inexcusable and ridiculous. It has been repeatedly shown to you that it was never in play, because a simple larceny of a chose in action cannot be the predicate felony for felony murder. Your inability to grasp that shows either you are mentally ill, or that your efforts to help Crystal are not serious, but are simply an attempt to emotionally manipulate her by pretending you are trying to help.

And don't do your nonsense of "why else would they do it." They thought they had the crime, they charged it. It was not for felony murder.; February 18, 2022 at 11:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Pretty sure you've been told this before.

Any relief asked for that is not under the purview of the defendant can't be granted.

The DHHS can't release inmates.; February 18, 2022 at 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

It’s time for you to come clean and admit that you are preparing these lawsuits for Crystal. No one believes that she is dictating this garbage to you.; February 18, 2022 at 3:38 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid,

It’s time for you to come clean and admit that you are preparing these lawsuits for Crystal. No one believes that she is dictating this garbage to you.

February 18, 2022 at 3:38 PM

Hey, Anony.

There's no big revelation here... of course I am preparing them, though I would hardly refer to the lawsuits as garbage.; February 18, 2022 at 5:11 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Pretty sure you've been told this before.

Any relief asked for that is not under the purview of the defendant can't be granted.

The DHHS can't release inmates.

February 18, 2022 at 12:27 PM

Hey, Anony.

I don't believe that Mangum sought release as part of her request for relief. I think you are missing the forest for the trees. What Mangum wants, plain and simple, with this lawsuit is for the NC DHHS to order a review of the Nichols' autopsy report on Daye... something the State doesn't want to take place as it'll be grounds for Mangum's freedom and vindication.; February 18, 2022 at 5:15 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
The fact you are still talking about the Felony Murder rule is inexcusable and ridiculous. It has been repeatedly shown to you that it was never in play, because a simple larceny of a chose in action cannot be the predicate felony for felony murder. Your inability to grasp that shows either you are mentally ill, or that your efforts to help Crystal are not serious, but are simply an attempt to emotionally manipulate her by pretending you are trying to help.

And don't do your nonsense of "why else would they do it." They thought they had the crime, they charged it. It was not for felony murder.

February 18, 2022 at 11:59 AM

Hey, Anony.

Face it... The Attorney General's Office knew they lacked probable cause for the Larceny of Chose in Action charges, so their defense was based on procedural technicalities such as statute of limitations and improper service of summons. They did not even argue the larceny charges at trial.; February 18, 2022 at 5:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid said "I would hardly refer to (Mangum's) lawsuits as garbage."

If your lolsuits weren't garbage, they wouldn't keep getting thrown out.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; February 18, 2022 at 7:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Wait…You admit to preparing these documents for Mangum in 1 post, then in the very next post state “ I don't believe that Mangum sought release as part of her request for relief.”

Read the last page of the lawsuit and pay close attention to item #4 in the requested relief section.; February 19, 2022 at 8:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr - Your response @ 5:22 doesn’t answer the question as to why you keep bringing up that “the “larceny of chose in action” charges were enacted to invoke the felony murder rule…” when it has been proven to be false.; February 19, 2022 at 8:08 AM
Nifong Supporter Supporter said...: Dr. Harr,

How long did it take you to draft the most recent complaint? Did you have access to a law library?; February 19, 2022 at 8:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid said "I would hardly refer to (Mangum's) lawsuits as garbage."

If your lolsuits weren't garbage, they wouldn't keep getting thrown out.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

February 18, 2022 at 7:10 PM

Hey, Abe.

Mangum's lawsuits aren't tossed because they lack merit, but rather because the judges are racially biased against Crystal and rule based on their desired outcome... which is invariably against the Duke Lacrosse accuser.

The unfairness is evident in Mangum's recent libel lawsuit in which the recent Cooper-appointee Superior Court Judge Sternlicht didn't even allow Mangum to present her case before ruling to dismiss it. Do you consider that to be fair, Abe?; February 20, 2022 at 11:13 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Nifong Supporter Supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

How long did it take you to draft the most recent complaint? Did you have access to a law library?

February 19, 2022 at 8:08 AM

Hey, Nifong Double-Supporter.

No, I had no access to a law library. Can't remember the last occasion in which I found myself in a law library.

The most recent civil rights lawsuit against DHHS followed the timeline presented hereafter. In a certified letter on January 15, 2022, a letter to the Secretary was written requesting a response about a review of the Nichols' autopsy no later than the end of the month.

While awaiting a response I was finishing up on Part One of my most recent shar-video... finally completing and uploading it on Monday, February 7th. Having not heard from the DHHS secretary by then, I began drafting the brief on Tuesday, February 8, 2022. I finished drafting it on February 12, 2022 and planned to file it on Valentine's Day, but was unable to get it fully printed with exhibits, and complete the summons required for service by the Wake County Sheriff's Department until the following day of the 15th, when I filed it.; February 20, 2022 at 11:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Wait…You admit to preparing these documents for Mangum in 1 post, then in the very next post state “ I don't believe that Mangum sought release as part of her request for relief.”

Read the last page of the lawsuit and pay close attention to item #4 in the requested relief section.

February 19, 2022 at 8:02 AM

Hey, Anony.

Unlike many politicians, I am not going to double down... instead, I will admit that I was incorrect. However, by saying "believe" that meant that I was not absolutely sure with the draft before me to state absolute assuredness regarding the comment. In other words, I didn't bother to refer to the brief prior to responding, and couldn't be sure, although I felt that I probably didn't ask for such relief as home-arrest, etc. Considering the overwhelming evidence of Mangum's absolute innocence, I did not think her release would be out of the question. Keep in mind that "nothing ventured, nothing gained."; February 20, 2022 at 11:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr - Your response @ 5:22 doesn’t answer the question as to why you keep bringing up that “the “larceny of chose in action” charges were enacted to invoke the felony murder rule…” when it has been proven to be false.

February 19, 2022 at 8:08 AM

Hey, Anony.

How could the prosecution make such a charge without probable cause? Does it make sense to you that Crystal would steal two cashier's checks made out to a third party and which she could therefore not cash? Besides, even if her motive was malicious just to cause Reginald Daye grief, all he would need to do is go to the credit union and have the checks reissued. The logical explanation, using Sherlockian deduction, is the "felony-murder rule" motive. It's elementary, dear Anony.; February 20, 2022 at 11:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Except that logical conclusion is wrong, as has been explained many times. The larceny charge could not have formed the basis of felony murder. Period. Your inability to understand why it was charged doesn't change that.; February 20, 2022 at 12:07 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 2-20-22 11:41 said: The larceny charge could not have formed the basis of felony murder. Period.========================== Are Class H felonies in North Carolina exempt from the Felony Murder Rule?; February 20, 2022 at 3:16 PM
Anonymous said...: It has been explained on this blog repeatedly that the Larceny of Chose In Action CANNOT form the basis for the Felony Murder Rule.

Further, the State didn't even ask for the jury to convict on those charges, and the jury WASN’T instructed on the felony murder rule.

What part of this can you NOT understand?; February 20, 2022 at 6:06 PM
kenhyderal said...: Are you saying the answer to my question is no?; February 20, 2022 at 7:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Larceny of Chose In Action CANNOT form the basis for the Felony Murder Rule.

That is what I and others have told you and Sid for roughly 10 years.

Why would you care about any other felonies? You plan a committing a few?; February 20, 2022 at 8:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, Kenny, a non-violent felony, and a class H felony, cannot form the basis for felony murder in North Carolina, which has repeatedly been explained to both you and Sid, you just refuse to learn. The Larceny of a Chose in Action never could have formed the basis for felony murder.; February 21, 2022 at 4:56 AM
Anonymous said...: It’s simple to understand- which I guess is why both Sid and Kenny have failed to do so.

In order to form the basis of “felony murder”, the underlying offense must present a foreseeable danger to life, and the link between the offense and the death must not be too remote.

Some class H felonies:

Fraudulently Setting Fire to Dwelling Houses.

Embezzlement

Assault by strangulation

Felony of chose in action.

Using Sherlockian deduction, from this list of class H felonies , tell me which can be used for a felony murder conviction.; February 21, 2022 at 5:48 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: Are Class H felonies in North Carolina exempt from the Felony Murder Rule?

Ken,
Have you ever read the North Carolina felony murder rule?
It's in North Carolina Gen. Stat. sec. 14-17. You can find it on line.
Hint: it mentions certain felonies, but larceny (of any type) is not one of them.; February 21, 2022 at 10:00 AM
kenhyderal said...: @Anonymouses 2-21-22 (A.)= 4:56 and(B.)= 5:48 I can't locate the statute can you provide me with a link.; February 21, 2022 at 10:36 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Dr. C. 2-21-22 10:00 AM: Thank you Dr. C. Your post came on after my request to the two (or maybe only one; who can tell) posters. that I responded to.; February 21, 2022 at 10:41 AM
Anonymous said...: "The logical explanation, using Sherlockian deduction, is the "felony-murder rule" motive. It's elementary, dear Anony."

So much for your "Sherlockian deduction", Sid.

What's elementary is that you've ignored the reality (as provided to you by ACTUAL lawyers like Dr. Caligari and Walt) and substituted your own.; February 21, 2022 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: This may seem like a silly question -- but did you ever request the autopsy documents from the OCME "document request" website?

Your letters tend to come across a bit adversarial -- perhaps this would have been a better option.

Since DHHS has stated that there will be no further contact with you, why not get Cyril Wecht to request them?; February 21, 2022 at 1:51 PM
Jim said...: Dr C, et al.

This has been pointed out since at least Nov 2013, when someone wrote:

"It would be nice if people actually researched the law. Larceny of Chose in Action, as a non-violent, class H Felony, cannot support a finding of felony murder. And, in any event, Felony Murder was not presented to the jury as an option. Felony Murder has never been an option in this case."

Almost NINE YEARS, and Sid and Kenny have ignored it. Do you honestly think you can change either of their minds now?; February 21, 2022 at 3:13 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Dr. C. (again) 2-21-22 10:00 Sorry for the persistance but that link was not helpful. I am struggling to understand all the constant attacks on Dr. Harr over this question. Is there any direct clause, in the Legislation, that says certain types of Class H Felonies, such as Lacency in Chose of Action are not eligible and cannot be used to invoke a Felony Murder Rule? When a Felony Murder Rule is invoked must it be specified on the origional first degree charge? Since Larcency in Chose of Action is not directly specified in the Rule regulations, does that mean it can not be used? As pointed out by Anonymous, does the legislation actually say, "the underlying offense must present a foreseeable danger to life, and the link between the offense and the death must not be too remote" and is that also in play for higher classes of Felonies as well? And are the subjective concepts of "foreseeable" and "remote" defined?; February 21, 2022 at 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

You should be able to figure it out on your own. After all, you claim to understand the Welch case.; February 21, 2022 at 8:42 PM
kenhyderal said...: Jim @ 2-21-22 Said: "It would be nice if people actually researched the law. Larceny of Chose in Action, as a non-violent, class H Felony, cannot support a finding of felony murder".... ... Attempting to do just that. And as to your "at any rate statement" is , that an answer to my question, as to if it must be specified on the first degree murder charging indictment. I'm a lay person Jim and I sure would like to see this matter clarified; which for me, up until now, it has not been.; February 21, 2022 at 8:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Please provide an analysis of the felony murder rule under Canadian law.; February 22, 2022 at 5:47 AM
Jim said...: Kenhyderal -- The "it would be nice..." comment is from another user from Nov. 13 2013.

I just re-posted it to show this has been discussed (and ignored) since prior to Crystal Mangum's conviction.

In order for a conviction of Felony Murder, the judge must give NC Pattern Jury Instruction NCPI 206.15 - Murder in perpetuation of a felony. The judge never gave this instruction.

Felony Murder was never in play.

Walt pointed this out on Nov. 22, 2013. Again, it was ignored.; February 22, 2022 at 6:19 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 2-22-22 5:47 "The felony murder rule has been abolished in England and Wales[6] and in Northern Ireland.[7] In Canada, it has been held to be unconstitutional, as breaching the principles of fundamental justice" - Wikipedia; February 22, 2022 at 9:51 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Jim 2-22-22 6:19 Thanks Jim for the clarification. Is it the Prosecuting Attorney who makke the decision which Felonies trigger a Felony Murder Rule and which, because they are non-violent, do not and who then decides whether to make the charge Felony Murder? Is this process discretionary or is it codified; again with the concepts of forseeable and remote defined?; February 22, 2022 at 10:05 AM
Jim said...: Kenyderal -- I'd have to defer to Dr. Caligari or one of the other lawyers that post here (assuming that some of the "Anonymous" commenters are lawyers).

it is my understanding that only those felonies considered a "dangerous felony" (i.e. burglary, robbery, rape, arson and kidnapping) that result in a fatality can trigger the Felony Murder rule. (these felonies DO vary from state to state, though).

Larceny of Chose in Action is not considered a "dangerous felony" in North Carolina.

With regard to "forseeable" and "remote", while perhaps not defined in NC law, they are easy concepts to understand. Let me give you an example.

I steal a cashier's check worth less than $1,000.00 (larceny of chose in action).

I sell the stolen check to you.

You have an allergic reaction to the ink in the checks, go into anaphylactic shock and die.

Your death was not "forseeable" (I have no idea what your allergies are) and was unrelated to the actual felony ("remote").; February 22, 2022 at 11:35 AM
Jim said...: FWIW, I believe the felony Murder law should be abolished, or if not abolished, drastically changed.

There is currently a non-partisan organization in North Carolina (North Carolina Citizens for Felony Murder Rule Change -- "NCCFMRC") attempting to do this.; February 22, 2022 at 11:41 AM
kenhyderal said...: B.t.w. Jim, the death of Reginald Daye was not forseeable.; February 22, 2022 at 3:44 PM
Jim said...: Quite a few stabbings result in death.
“Thus, but for defendant's act…”

See State v. Welch.; February 22, 2022 at 7:57 PM
A Durham Man said...: Kenny,

Do you always use Wikipedia for all of your legal research?; February 23, 2022 at 5:59 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: 1. The statute (in each state which recognizes the felony-murder rule) lists the specific felonies which can support a murder charge. A felony murder charge cannot be based on any felony not in the statute. In North Carolina, the definition of felony murder (in the statute I cited) is a killing "which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon."

2. If a prosecutor wishes to charge felony-murder, that charge must be specified in the indictment. In other words, the indictment would have to say "Defendant killed Victim in the course of committing a robbery against Victim."

3. If a defendant is charged with felony murder, the judge must give a jury instructions on felony murder. See the comment by Jim at 6:19 on 2/2/22.

None of this happened in Mangum's case. All of this was explained and other commentators on this blog, years ago. Dr. Harr continues to refuse to recognize this.

This is why all of Dr. Harr's lawsuits fail-- he doesn't know the law, and he refuses to learn. I and others explained to him countless times that the statute of limitations for libel is one year; that the statute starts running from the date of the initial publication; and that demanding a retraction after one year does not re-start the limitations period. Dr. Harr kept saying, in effect, 'yes, but I think it should run from the date of the retraction demand.'

As long as Dr. Harr bases his lawsuits on what he thinks the law should be, and not on what it is, his lawsuits will all fail.

Are there unjust laws? Sure. Should they be changed? Some of them, certainly. But until they are changed, courts will follow what the law is, not what Dr. Harr wants it to be.; February 23, 2022 at 10:19 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ A Durham Man 2-23-22 It seems like a good place to start for someone like me with no legal expertise because citations are always provided for each piece of content within the entry thats provided.; February 23, 2022 at 1:49 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Dr. C. 2-23-22 Thanks for the clarifications.; February 23, 2022 at 1:50 PM
kenhyderal said...: @Jim 2-23-22: But, the prognosis, in Daye's case, by the Surgeon, who did the wound repair, foresaw a full recovery.; February 23, 2022 at 1:57 PM
kenhyderal said...: All very informative but, as usual, when it comes to Crystal, and to most African Americans excessive chargining seems to be the rule ie felony car theft, speeding to elude arrest, assault on a public official, atempted murder, arson, first degree murder. All those charges were thrown out and for those two previous incidents she was only found guilty of driving over the limit, and misdemeaner child neglect; in which case the Judge said evidence he saw convinced him that Crystal was a good Mother. And of course Larceny in Chose of Action for un- divertable money orders which she was given to pay rent and for which drunken alcoholic Daye asked for them back. Keep in mind Crystal had already rescued him from eviction by moving in and agreeing to share the rent which he apparently often blew on booze.; February 23, 2022 at 8:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Let us know how that research is going.; February 23, 2022 at 9:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Congratulations, Kenny. You are now a lay advocate in training.; February 24, 2022 at 6:12 AM
A Durham Man said...: Kenny,

Now that you have studied the felony murder rule closely, please confirm for us whether Dr. Harr is applying the principle correctly in the most recent lawsuit he prepared for Crystal.; February 25, 2022 at 4:42 PM
kenhyderal said...: The question remains, what could possibly be the rationale for tacking on this charge, that the police interview confirmed could never meet the criteria of a chargeable crime; not stolden but given! Nothing, other than vindictive ill-will. In itself the "stealing" of a monetary instrument, of this kind, is a type of "robbery", at least in a layman's understanding. It seems that those who laid the charge may of mistakenly had the possibility of a felony murder as their motive, in order to put her away. In her case, Felony Murder would have been the preferred solution for placing her where she could no longer be a threat to any political careers. Pointing this out, by Dr. Harr, adds creadence to the belief she is purposely and vindictively being railroaded.; February 25, 2022 at 7:40 PM
Anonymous said...: No, Kenny, unlike Sid, they know the law. Felony Murder was never the motive, and even if they had that mistaken belief, as you admit, it would have been mistaken - Sid still claims it was in play. Sid is wrong, you can admit it.; February 26, 2022 at 10:27 AM
Jim said...: MOO, the larceny of chose in action was added simply as an attempt to force a plea bargain.

The Durham DA's office under both Mike Nifong AND Tracey Kline (and possibly before them) were well known for using this tactic -- so much so that something like 90% of their convictions were due to plea bargains.

DA Satana Deberry has even partnered with with researchers at the Wilson Center for Science and Justice to design and pilot a new Plea Tracker project that is generating comprehensive data on the factors that drive case outcomes.

To quote DA Deberry, “We cannot address the deep-seated racial disparities in our criminal legal system without scrutinizing how plea offers are formed and negotiated. As prosecutors, the plea process is our biggest opportunity to use our discretion to create a more equitable system...The Plea Tracker helps our office to ensure that achieving fairness and equity – rather than pursuing the highest possible charges and sanctions regardless of the costs to our community – are the starting point for resolving each case.”

Of course, Dr. Harr will find issues with these actions because it's DA Deberry and the Wilson Center is part of Duke Law.; February 26, 2022 at 12:03 PM
Anonymous said...: "It seems that those who laid the charge may of mistakenly had the possibility of a felony murder as their motive, in order to put her away."

Re-read Dr. Caligari's post from February 23, 2022 at 10:19 AM.

The only one who could have "laid the charge" of felony murder is the prosecutor. The prosecutor HAS to specify a charge of felony murder in the indictment.

Have you read the murder indictment? Has Sid?; February 26, 2022 at 2:03 PM
A Durham Man said...: Kenny,

It is very apparent that you are in over your head in this discussion. Why don’t you save yourself from further embarrassment?; February 26, 2022 at 5:45 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ A Durham Man: Asking questions, to get answers about something you don't know, should never embarrass. As I have often said, I am not a Lawyer and have had no encounters in my lifetime with the legal system in any jurisdiction. As a complete lay person, though, I sense grave inequality in what I observe in the American Justice System and it's blatantly obvious adverse consequences for the poor and for minorities, there. There seems to be a wide consensus there and abroad that it is in drastic need of reform.; February 27, 2022 at 7:50 PM
A Durham Man said...: Kenny,

Although you may not be a lawyer, you certainly are a troll. For years you tried to pass off plagerized statements as your own, which earned you the nickname “Cut and Paste Ken.” And, of course, you communicated regularly with your Internet friend Kilgo.

It is obvious why most readers of Sid’s blog never took you seriously. However, be sure to let us know when you identify the mystery rapists.; February 28, 2022 at 5:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Right, Kenny -- I'm sure the Uyghurs in China and the Christians in the middle east (as well as the truck drivers in Canada and the unvaccinated in Quebec) feel the justice systems there are just fine, and that only the USA is in drastic need of reform.; February 28, 2022 at 8:47 AM
Anonymous said...: What's the status on the Mangum V. Oxygen Media lawsuit??; February 28, 2022 at 3:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Just an FYI -- It looks like Kody Kinsley and the DHHS were granted their Motion for Extension of Time to Answer.

They have until April 8 to respond.; February 28, 2022 at 3:38 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ A Durham Man 2-28-22 5:45: For years? Can you cite a single example of me, trying to pass off plagiarized statements as my own? You made the charge so back it up.; February 28, 2022 at 4:33 PM
A Durham Man said...: Kenny,

Here are a few examples. I will let you look for the rest of them.

From Kenny's post of 11/15/11 at 5:11 p.m.:

"...This law made Upper Canada the first British colony to abolish slavery. The Act remained in force until 1833 when the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act abolished slavery in all parts of the British Empire."

From Wikipedia entry titled "Act Against Slavery":

"...This law made Upper Canada the first British colony to abolish slavery. The Act remained in force until 1833 when the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act abolished slavery in most parts of the British Empire."

From Kenny's post of 9/18/11 at 2:08 p.m.:

"A blood alcohol level of about 300-400 mg per 100 ml will usually cause loss of consciousness. However, highly tolerant individuals may show only moderate drunkeness at 400 mg per 100 ml, the normal LD50."

From Yahoo Answers, Why do people vomit when they dring a lot?:

"A blood alcohol level of about 300-400 mg per 100 ml will usually cause loss of consciousness. However, highly tolerant individuals may show only moderate drunkeness at 400 mg per 100 ml, the normal LD50."; March 1, 2022 at 5:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny -- Does the name "Shenali Waudge" sound familiar?; March 1, 2022 at 6:42 AM
Anonymous said...: "Most of us understand that just copying and pasting someone else's work, without providing a citation, is plagiarism...If you rewrite that perfect paragraph or sentence (aka you paraphrase or summarize it), remember that the ideas in the reworded version still came from the original author(s)...so you must cite the original source!"

- Priscilla Coulter, Senior Online Librarian American Public University System.

See how easy that is?; March 1, 2022 at 9:38 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ A Durham Man: 3-1-22 5:59 : Oh, such egregious examples of plagiarism from 2011, in a discussion, advancing a fact found in any encyclopedia and not giving credit to the Encyclopedia or to their ultimate source; outrageous. Advancing an answer on a question regarding alcoholic tolerance, gleaned from Yahoo Answers; horendous. It's obvious that you have a warped concept of what constitutes plagiarism. Was any reader ever deceived that this research and these opinions were my own. Only the "gotcha" guys of the Duke Lacrosse apologists, seeking to discredit their opponents, grasp at such straws then scream plagiarism over and over in Goebbels like fashion. That's what they did to Crystal about addicion and prostitution. In my case they have decided on plagiarism.; March 1, 2022 at 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: You asked for examples.

You got examples.

Not listed is your paraphrased comment from a column by Shenali Waudge. You admitted to this in August 2018, and eventually posted the link to the column after you were called out on it.

"...[J]ust copying and pasting someone else's work, without providing a citation, is plagiarism."
- Priscilla Coulter (Boom! Citiation!)

B*tch about it all you want. Unless you can show more qualifications then the aforementioned Priscilla Coulter, I trust her definition of plagiarism more than yours.; March 1, 2022 at 12:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 3-1-22 12:29 No, in that case, when I was asked, where did you come up with such information, I provided the link to a Newspaper article in The Sri Lankan Daily News and gave the name of the Journalist from whose article I got my information. It was quickly noticed that the information I provided came, word for word, directly from that article, which I didn't attribute. Without my direction it would not have been available to anyone here. Those desperate to discredit my winning arguement jumped on it with glee and have been beating this dead horse for many years. The original post was years before the date you cited. Ever wonder why no one inimical to Crystal is ever held to such standards; March 1, 2022 at 1:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Amazing how Kenny changes the subject - he seems to acknowledge that felony murder was not in play, but refuses to call out Sid for lying about it for so long, or attempting to correct Sid, so instead he keeps changing the subject.

Kenny, if you really want Sid to be helpful to Crystal, you need to be willing to call him out when he's wrong. He's 100% wrong on felony murder - you need to call him out on it.; March 1, 2022 at 4:29 PM
guiowen said...: Anony,
Please don't be so hard in Kenny. It's just that,because of context, he forgets half of what he's said,and misunderstands half of what other people say.; March 1, 2022 at 8:00 PM
Anonymous said...: “ was quickly noticed that the information I provided came, word for word, directly from that article, which I didn't attribute.”

That, of course, is plagiarism. Just as the two examples A Durham Man identified.

Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about plagiarism from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism_from_Wikipedia

Congratulations! Not only did you plagiarize, you also violated public copyright licenses…; March 1, 2022 at 8:53 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous: 3-1-22, 5:53 Give it a rest. At no time did I ever try to pass off information from Denali Waudge or from Yahoo Answers or from Wikipedia as my own work. Using knowlege and facts gleaned from various sources, to make a point, does not constitute illegal plagiarism under any definition and certainly not Wilipedia's definition. Lawyers please weigh in; March 2, 2022 at 1:28 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 3-1-22 4:59 Dr. Harr is a truthful man who calles a spade a spade. He has raised an inportant question as to why, the known to be false, Felony in Chose of Action charge was laid and proceeded with. And, he has speculated upon what possible motive could be the reason for this. I am still uncertain, given the wording of the legislation, that there is no possible chance such a felony could never be used as the basis for invoking a Felony Murder Rule. Yes, it was not in play because at some point, given the facts, it was judged to be inappropriate. Again Lawyers weigh in.m; March 2, 2022 at 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Plagiarism, while morally and ethically dishonest, is not a crime unless copyright licenses are broken.

But yes, you did indeed cut sections from both Wikipedia and Yahoo Answers without acknowledgement, and attempted to pass them off as your own.

Now you’re downplaying the fact that you’ve done so for years, passing it off as an an attempt by others to discredit you.

You’ve discredited yourself enough. No one else need bother.; March 3, 2022 at 5:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Repeat after me:

Felony murder can only be applied when deaths occur during the committing of crimes that are considered “inherently dangerous”.

Dr. Caligari identified these "inherently dangerous" crimes as defined in North Carolina Gen. Stat. sec. 14-17.

Felony of Chose in Action IS NOT an inhererntly dangerous crime.

Therefore, there is no possible way it could be used to invoke the Felony Murder rule.

it's not rocket surgery.; March 3, 2022 at 4:34 PM
kenhyderal said...: Hello Dr. Harr: Did my reply to Anonymous 3-3-22 5:42 AM get lost?; March 4, 2022 at 10:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, kenhyderal.

Just looked at laptop and showed no comment submitted by you for March 3rd. Please resubmit if you have a copy.; March 4, 2022 at 11:52 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 3-3-22 4:34 PM That's a "bum rap". I did not try to pass off as my own, information, I gleaned, in support of my arguements, from well known knowlege based sources of facts and information, in general use. The information, is in the public domain and has already been fully sourced and crediited. It's notable that only advocates for Crystal are held to this standard by Duke Lacrosse apologists. I am not a racist, I am not a Nazi, I an not a felon, wanted in the U.S.A., I am not a liar, I am not a virtue signaller and I am not a plagiarist. The Duke Lacrosse defence gang has prefected the technique of discrediting Crystal and anyone else who believes she was sexually assaulted. It's worked, for now, and has been very lucrative for them but there will come a day of reckoning; March 4, 2022 at 1:48 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " Felony of Chose in Action IS NOT an inhererntly dangerous crime".... No less so then in a robbery where you don't resist; March 4, 2022 at 1:53 PM
Anonymous said...: No one ever confused Kenny with a rocket surgeon.; March 4, 2022 at 3:46 PM
A Durham Man said...: Kenny,

How has discrediting Crystal and you been lucrative for the Duke Lacrosse defence gang?; March 5, 2022 at 5:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal- “Robbery” always involves the use (or threat) of force. Whether the person being robbed resists or not, it is still inherently dangerous.

Look it up on Wikipedia.; March 5, 2022 at 5:44 AM
Anonymous said...: You can deny it all you want, Kenhyderal. You took entire sections of other peoples work, cut and pasted it into the comments you posted here, and attempted to pass off those comments as your own.

If it were a school assignment, you would have failed.; March 5, 2022 at 5:53 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "No one ever confused Kenny with a rocket surgeon." Yeah, but he didn't just fall off the turnip truck either and like most Common men he knows when he is being "B.S.ed" B.S. can baffle brains but common men have the common sense to know what is the right thing. Hey, I guess it's now time for the amature psychiatrists to accuse him of illeism; March 5, 2022 at 8:43 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "You took entire sections of other peoples work, cut and pasted it into the comments you posted here, and attempted to pass off those comments as your own............... I did no such thing. Not in any school I ever attended would that be grounds to fail. There was no attempt to pass off these researched facts as my oown work.; March 5, 2022 at 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Give it up. Your post at 1:48 makes you look like a fool.

The question for you is how many of your other posts over the past decade have been cut and paste jobs using plagiarized material?; March 5, 2022 at 11:22 AM
Anonymous said...: In 2011 you posted:

"A blood alcohol level of about 300-400 mg per 100 ml will usually cause loss of consciousness. However, highly tolerant individuals may show only moderate drunkeness at 400 mg per 100 ml, the normal LD50."

That was copied VERBATIM from Yahoo Answers. Not even an attempt to reword it or phrase it in a manner so that the actual source couldn't be tracked down.

...And no source citation.

So yeah -- You did do it. If your teachers wouldn't have failed your assignment for this immoral and unethical act, that speaks to your poor education.

Not surprising.; March 5, 2022 at 4:42 PM
Anonymous said...: The Differences Between Larceny and Robbery Crimes:

"Theft or larceny involves taking property without the use of force and without breaking into a structure to do so. Robbery involves taking property from a person through force or the threat of force..."

-- Smith Giles PLLC

Does this help you at all understand why Larceny of Chose in Action could never be used to invoke the Felony Murder rule?

It's about the actions of the perpetrator -- not the reactions of the victim(s).; March 5, 2022 at 5:05 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 11:22 AM: ..... The answer is zero. Like Plagiarist, my post lists some other phoney labels applied to me; all without merit. I'm in good company, though, because Crystal, Dr. Harr, Former DA Nifong, Nurse Tara Levicy, Dr. Manley, Author Wm. Cohan etc. have all faced the same Duke Lacrosse Team projections. But, hey go and look then get back to us with what you find.; March 5, 2022 at 6:54 PM
Anonymous said...: The “plagiarist” label is well earned, Kenhyderal.

With your constant denials when confronted with evidence proving your guilt, you’re quickly earning another.

We’ll just add that one to the label you’re earning by not understanding the difference between larceny and robbery….; March 5, 2022 at 7:43 PM
Prince Humperdinck said...: Dr. Harr - ANY updates on the Mangum v. Oxygen Media case??; March 6, 2022 at 8:35 AM
kenhyderal said...: A Durham Man said "How has discrediting Crystal and you been lucrative for the Duke Lacrosse defence gang?"....... Their massive cofidential settlement with Duke's Insurance, rumoured to be 60 million and the settlement of a subsequent lawsuit against The City of Durham and
The Durham Police. While it was on-going it perpetuated the relentless trashing of Crystal and her supporters.; March 6, 2022 at 10:46 AM
Anonymous said...: To the poster at 11:22 AM:

You missed the point. In Kenny's terms, the question for him is how many of his posts over the past decade have been cut and paste jobs using material from well known knowledge based sources of facts and information that are in general use and that include information that is in the public domain and has already been fully sourced and credited?; March 6, 2022 at 1:53 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Prince Humperdinck said...
Dr. Harr - ANY updates on the Mangum v. Oxygen Media case??

March 6, 2022 at 8:35 AM

Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

I'll give updates on all three of Mangum's lawsuits.
(1) Mangum v. WRAL-5 News in Wake Superior Court Civil Division: Judge Mark Sternlicht, dismissed Mangum's libel/defamation lawsuit in an ex parte hearing in which she was not permitted to present her case. This is in the appellate phase. I expect the Record on Appeal to be settled soon after which she will file a brief with the NC Court of Appeals.

(2) Mangum v. Oxygen Media Group in NC Eastern District Federal Court: The motions have all been submitted by the clerk to the judge, and the ball has been in the court's court... pun intended. I believe there are three major possible outcomes. The first being that a magistrate judge will arrange for oral arguments or make a recommendation... this being the hoped for outcome. The second being that the U.S. District Judge Dever holds a motions hearing with oral arguments. The third outcome being the U.S. District Judge Dever makes a ruling to dismiss Mangum's lawsuit without a magistrate recommendation/involvement and without holding oral arguments. The latter is what I believe to be the most likely outcome... and it is no doubt the most unjust. So, with Oxygen, Mangum is waiting for the court to make its move.

(3) Mangum v. DHHS in NC Eastern District federal court: Mangum's original brief for civil rights violation has been filed and defendants have been granted an extension for time to file a response until April 8tth. A disturbing development in this case has me extremely perturbed, and I will publish a blog about it once I've uploaded Part Two of my current four-part shar-video.; March 6, 2022 at 3:11 PM
Anonymous said...: I can't seem to find anything about the settlement of the lawsuit against The City of Durham and the Durham Police -- IIRC, Dr. Harr may have posted something about it, but I can't find it.

I do recall that part of the settlement was a grant to the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission. I don't consider that lucrative to the Duke Lacrosse defence gang.

I don't see anything that details the settlement with David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann (that was most likely confidential, like the Duke settlement, so that's not surprising).

Do you have any details about the lawsuit? i'd like to see instances of the trashing of Crystal Mangum on that lawsuit.

Thanks!; March 7, 2022 at 8:31 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 7, 2022 at 3:48 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 3-7-22 8:31 The terms of the settlement were, indeed, confidential but a Grant of 50 K to The Innocence Inquiry Commission in the names of the accused, of as "PART" of the settlement was made public. The main venue for the scurrilous trashing of Crystal, Nifong, Hinman, Levicy, Manly, Cohan. Gottlieb, Meehan, etc and of course Dr. Harr was the
singularly dedicated blog "Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers", that, day after day, for nearly a decade, led by Professor KC Johnson and the vicious and hateful Joan Foster were trashing these idividuals who didn't buy into their narrative about an evil Crystal. This was almost a daily occurance. Don't take my word for it check out in their archives. You'll find it was rife with this kind of poison.; March 7, 2022 at 3:50 PM
Anonymous said...: It appears to me that the majority of trashing of Crystal Mangum was in the comments of the DiW blog, rather than the blog entries themselves. KC Johnson is no more responsible for those comments than Dr. Harr is here - and I’ve found the trashing of Crystal Mangum to be much worse on this blog.

I couldn’t find instances of KC Johnson contributing to Liestoppers, although his blog entries often were used as part of the discussion there. Saying that KC Johnson led the discussion there is like saying Wikipedia leads the discussion on this blog when someone cuts and pastes information from Wikipedia into a blog entry or comment here.

Regardless, how were those blogs lucrative?

You really didn’t identify how the Durham lawsuit “perpetuated the relentless trashing of Crystal and her supporters.”

I may be wrong on my timeline, but wasn’t this Durham lawsuit going on roughly around the same time as the Mangum arson case?; March 8, 2022 at 5:29 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 3--8-22 The lawsuit, against Durham, was filed in Sept. 2007 and not settled until May 2014. It was during this period that Duke Lacrosse Aplogists, constantly and merciously, trashed Crystal. I suppose, this was to bolster the idea that the plaintives were victims of this evil person. This unfair campaign created great difficulty for her in her life. The arson charge against her, of which she was aquitted, was laid in Feb 2010 and she was found not guilty in December 2010. I concur that KC Johnson, one of the main aplogists for The Duke Lacrosse Team, didn't himself post directly on Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers but he was a driving force in promoting the angelification of the Players and the demonization of Crystal and he was the hero of the so-called "Liestoppers" blog. This was lucrative, in as much as it helped an acceptance that these poor college boys were badly harmed by the evil, coniving sorceress, Crystal Mangum and must be compensated.; March 8, 2022 at 10:31 AM
Anonymous said...: It's funny how this whole thread started as a commentary on how Sid was wrong about Felony Murder, and Kenny almost agreed, but then changed the subject so he doesn't have to call Sid out. Kenny is a good little cultist. Must not criticize the dear leader.; March 8, 2022 at 4:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 3-8-22 4:46 Wrong; it was a Durham Man who changed the subject by calling me a Troll and a Plagiarist. You follow up here by calling me a Cultist. You anonymous posters always seem revert to ad hominem attacks.; March 8, 2022 at 8:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

Have you been plagiarizing again?; March 8, 2022 at 8:37 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 8-3-22 8:37 "Have you stopped beating your wife"; March 9, 2022 at 8:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Pretty sure the actions of Mike Nifong and the Durham police (not Crystal Mangum) were the targets of "demonization" in the Durham lawsuit.

Crystal wasn't named as a defendant in that lawsuit, so she would server no purpose being a target.

That's why I asked for details about the lawsuit -- I want to see if Crystal Mangum WAS in any way targeted. It doesn't make sense to me that she would, since she wasn't a party involved in it.; March 9, 2022 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Is all of the plagiarizing by the little man an attempt to make up for his shortcomings?; March 9, 2022 at 4:50 PM
Anonymous said...: The face Crystal Mangum makes in the picture for this blog…Is that “Blue Steel”, “Le Tigre”, or “Magnum”?; March 9, 2022 at 7:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Blue Steel!

https://www.gq.com/story/blue-steel-zoolander-selfie-culture; March 10, 2022 at 1:43 PM
Harr Supporter said...: Dr. Harr,

I can’t help but notice that you have not commented on the examples of plagiarism on your blog by kenhyderal, which have been brought to light recently by diligent posters. The plagiarism is totally inconsistent with your sharlogs and your court filings, all which you prepare meticulously and with appropriate attribution to written material that is not your own.

kenhyderal’s plagiarism is a discredit to you and raises doubts about the credibility of the material you post at your blog. I know that many of your readers join with me in requesting that you institute procedures that will prevent future plagiarism by kenhyderal.; March 12, 2022 at 10:08 AM
kenhyderal said...: How about it, Lawyers, who post on this blog, will you add your name to the request by "Harr Supporter" asking Dr. Harr to institute procedures to prevent what he calls plagiarism here by me?; March 12, 2022 at 6:41 PM
Anonymous said...: No, Kenny, because he is just being a troll.

Stop feeding the trolls.; March 13, 2022 at 8:46 AM
A Durham Man said...: Kenny ,

It appears you don’t know Sid very well. Why would he care about the opinions of lawyers regarding Harr Supporter’s request?

Also, Harr Supporter correctly refers to your posts as plagiarism. Your arguments that you did not plagiarize fail even the laugh test.; March 13, 2022 at 9:43 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Harr Supporter said...

Dr. Harr,

I can’t help but notice that you have not commented on the examples of plagiarism on your blog by kenhyderal, which have been brought to light recently by diligent posters. The plagiarism is totally inconsistent with your sharlogs and your court filings, all which you prepare meticulously and with appropriate attribution to written material that is not your own.

kenhyderal’s plagiarism is a discredit to you and raises doubts about the credibility of the material you post at your blog. I know that many of your readers join with me in requesting that you institute procedures that will prevent future plagiarism by kenhyderal.

Hey, Harr Supporter.

I actually haven't been commenting recently because I've been busy trying to complete Part Two of my recent shar-video. It is essentially completed now... I merely have to put the pieces together, turn it into a video and upload it. So, it might be available for viewing as early as tomorrow afternoon.

As far as accusations of plagiarism go, my tendency is to give broad leeway to comments on this site as long as they follow the kenhyderal doctrine. That said, I doubt that kenhyderal is guilty of the offense and I do not believe that that issue should cloud your understanding of the message heimparts in his comments.; March 13, 2022 at 11:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Pretty sure the actions of Mike Nifong and the Durham police (not Crystal Mangum) were the targets of "demonization" in the Durham lawsuit.

Crystal wasn't named as a defendant in that lawsuit, so she would server no purpose being a target.

That's why I asked for details about the lawsuit -- I want to see if Crystal Mangum WAS in any way targeted. It doesn't make sense to me that she would, since she wasn't a party involved in it.

March 9, 2022 at 11:08 AM

Hey, Anony.

I think the lawsuit by the Duke Lacrosse defendants was a money-grab. After scoring $20 million from Duke University in an out-of-court settlement, they tried to do the same with the city of Durham. Mayor Bill Bell, at that time, was willing to give in, but other more sensible and courageous voices prevailed. Mangum wasn't pursued as a defendant because she had no financial assets.; March 13, 2022 at 11:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr - Are you agreeing that Crystal Mangum wasn’t a target of “demonization” in the Durham lawsuit?

Do you have any links to the lawsuit, or links to your blog entries about the lawsuit? I’ve tried looking through your blog history 2010-2014, but couldn’t find anything specific.

Thanks!; March 13, 2022 at 2:30 PM
Ishmael said...: “Plagiarism, while morally and ethically dishonest, is not a crime unless copyright licenses are broken.”
- Anonymous on March 3, 2022 at 5:42 AM

It’s Dr. Harr’s blog. If he’s okay with people being morally and ethically dishonest here, then I’m good with it as well.

I am willing to accept correction if I’ve failed to cite a source for something I’ve posted here. Why aren’t you?; March 13, 2022 at 2:41 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Ishmael 3=13=22 2:41 Which is what I did in the case of Shenali Waudge. See my reply to Anonymous at 3-1-22 1:54 PM. In the case of Google Answers and Wikipedia, refernces for acertaining facts, I don't see it as morally and ethically dishonest to not credit these encylopedic sources of fact. Souces where the facts they provide are already credited. No reader here was decieved that I, a non medical person, conducted experiments on tolerance in alcoholics and those questioning the facts, as I did, probably, when googling the question, came up with my enquiry on Google Answers. I provided these already researched facts to counteract their acertation that Daye was not an alcoholic and their response was to find some "gotcha" they could tag me with. I'm sure, of course, you've seen all the other outrageous tags I've been labeled with by Duke Lacrosse Apologists, here, to which you, anonymously, add, by inference, morally and ethically dishonest.; March 13, 2022 at 7:20 PM
Rudy G. said...: Kenhyderal,

You can add my name to Harr Supporter’s request.; March 14, 2022 at 5:23 AM
Ishmael said...: I guess we can leave it as a difference of opinion, Kenhyderal.

I'll note that (for example) when Dr. Caligari references a law, he identifies the statute, rather than offering it up as his idea of what that statute states -- even though that statute is available onlne from an "encyclopedic source of fact".

If he did not, I feel fairly certain you would ask for that source.

And, i'll also note Priscilla Coulter's statement regarding "thoughts and ideas...[coming from]from the original author(s)."

To me, not providing a source is presenting those "thoughts and idea" as your own, rather than those of the original author.

You obviously feel differently. So be it.

Again, if Dr. Harr is comfortable with that, I have no problems either. It is his blog, after all.; March 14, 2022 at 8:15 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Rudy G. 3-14-22 5:23 AM ... Dr. Harr might compile such a list but of course it would only be composed of those posters who use a registered user name. Hopefully this will give you the incentive to do just that and stop posting anonymously.; March 14, 2022 at 9:59 AM
Attorney S. Powell said...: As usual, I agree with Rudy. I second Harr Supporter’s request.; March 14, 2022 at 12:54 PM
Callm3Chuck said...: Just for you, Kenhyderal.

..The poster formerly known as Ishmael.

-Chuck; March 14, 2022 at 1:23 PM
Callm3Chuck said...: Sorry Kenhyderal -- I thought just posting under my google account would automatically display me account name...Apparently you have to have a blogger account as well (odd, since Blogger is owned by Google, but oh well...)

Anyway - when i tried to create a Blogger account, it froze my computer -- Yikes!

I guess I'll just be "Unknown" (better than anonymous??) until I get this sorted out.

--Chuck; March 14, 2022 at 2:09 PM
Callm3Chuck said...: Dr. Harr - you can ignore my last post -- Apparently Blogger is showing me info now.; March 14, 2022 at 2:10 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Ishmael 2-14-22 8:15 In your opinion, do all posters here, including Duke Lacrosse Apologists, adhere to this standard, regarding the provision of citations for any fact presented in their posts? I am sensing a double standard is in place, the motive of which, I'm guessing, is to discredit me rather than countering my arguements as to why an innocent Crystal Mangum is being wrongfully gaoled for a crime that never occured. You are correct, I may well ask for the sources, and any reader can also ask me, on-line, where I got the information posted and as I did on the Shenali Waudge artice would provide it. Alternately, I am unlikely to scream plagiarism when they do provide me with information I asked for. Also, on the basis of this discussion about alleged plagiarism, do you really believe I am ethically and morally dishonest and Dr. Harr in allowing me to post on his blog is complicit.; March 14, 2022 at 2:11 PM
kenhyderal said...: Congratulations Callm3Chuk I hope many will follow your lead. I welcome trying to convince you about correcting the injustice done to Crystal Mangum.; March 14, 2022 at 2:14 PM
P. Mason said...: kenhyderal,

Add me to the list of those who are in favor of Harr Supporter’s request.; March 14, 2022 at 6:16 PM
Ben Matlock said...: kenhyderal,

Dr. Harr should adopt Harr Supporter’s proposal.; March 16, 2022 at 5:58 AM

Friday, February 18, 2022

MANGUM v. KINSLEY, DHHS: Filed in Federal Court on February 15, 2022

124 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me