Wednesday, September 17, 2025

North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission complaints filed by Dr. Harr against two judges

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,

18 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...


Unknown commented on "Factual Evidence of Crystal Mangum's Innocence intended to be presented to Durham D.A. Satana Deberry"
22 hours ago
Go read N.C.G.S. 14-17(a).

That statute defines first-degree murder to include a homicide committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any of the following felonies:
arson;
rape or a felony sex offense;
robbery;
kidnapping;
burglary; or
a felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon.

Do you see what’s not listed? Larceny. Do you know why it’s not listed? There is no use of or threat of force.

It is NOT enough to raise the murder charge to first degree. It never was. The prosecutors didn’t even bother to pursue a first degree murder charge. There was no evidence of specific intent to kill, premeditation, or deliberation.

Go ask your buddy Mike Nifong if I’m wrong. Better yet, I hear Tracey Cline’s back practicing law. Go ask her why her ADAs sought to prosecute the larceny charge. I eagerly await her response to you.


Hey, Anony.

You make my point. As it stood alone, the murder charge was not a first-degree offense. That is precisely why the prosecution trumped up the larceny of chose in action charge... it is one of the lowest levels of felony, but nonetheless it is a felony, and when used in the "felony-murder rule" it can justify the first-degree murder charge.

September 17, 2025 at 6:08 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Prince Humperdinck commented on "Factual Evidence of Crystal Mangum's Innocence intended to be presented to Durham D.A. Satana Deberry"
11 hours ago
"[W]hy else would the prosecution seek a larceny charge for two cashier's checks that Daye gave to Mangum?"

it's been pointed out to you before, but you chose to ignore it. The DAs office under Tracey Cline (and prior to her) was all about conviction rates. They purposely added charges to get the accused to take plea deals, because that's considered a conviction - they didn't want to risk going to court because they might lose, lowering their conviction rate.
Cline learned this approach from her previous boss...Mike Nifong.


Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

So you agree with me that the State knew its case was extremely weak (which it was) and therefore tried to go for a plea deal. The deal breaker (besides her innocence) was the State's insistence on her pleading guilty to stealing the two cashier's checks.

The State was fortunate to have a Dr. Ralph Erdmann-esque medical examiner like Dr. Clay Nichols who would produce made-to-order autopsy reports to help prosecution and police win convictions against innocent people... such as Crystal Mangum.

Surely you know, Prince, no crime was committed in Daye's death.

September 17, 2025 at 6:23 PM
Nifong Supporter said...



Prince Humperdinck commented on "Factual Evidence of Crystal Mangum's Innocence intended to be presented to Durham D.A. Satana Deberry"
11 hours ago
" it was my plan (or intention) to file a couple of documents last week.... Many links are required as there are eighteen exhibits."

Documents and exhibits for who? Surely you're not filing another lolsuit...


Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

As you can see, it was a complaint against two judges and not a lawsuit. However, I've got one more lawsuit up my sleeve which I hope I will not have to file. We'll see.

September 17, 2025 at 6:48 PM
Anonymous said...

A NON-VIOLENT FELONY CANNOT BE USED in a “felony murder” charge, nor can it be used to justify first degree murder. I honestly have no idea how you managed to pull that out of what I posted.
Go ask Mike Nifong or Tracey Cline. Post their responses.

September 17, 2025 at 8:44 PM
Prince Humperdinck said...

I’m glad you make my point that Nifong and Cline overcharged defendants to boost their conviction rate.

WRT CGM, she stabbed him (a crime), he died.

September 17, 2025 at 8:48 PM
Man in Black said...

" it was a complaint against two judges and not a lawsuit."
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

And disregarding the confidentiality clause of the complaint?
(੭ ˊ^ˋ)੭ ♡

September 18, 2025 at 10:08 AM
Anonymous said...

Do some research, Sid -- There is no "right to counsel" in civil cases unless in very few SPECIFIC circumstances (like Child Custody). Ergo, no civil misconduct by judge Somers for "Denial of Rights" in the Mangum v. Nelson case.
You were not named as a petitioner in this case, and as the case was about Judge Nelson violating CGM's civil rights. Your being in jail doesn't negate the judge's purview to accept or deny a continuance -- with or without reason.

As far as "unsubstantiated" allegations -- unless the is proof that something occurred, it doesn't belong in a judicial complaint.

You've lost this complaint, and wasted even more of the court (and Mangum's) time. Great job.

Meanwhile CGM is no closer to being ready for her release than she was 12 years ago -- even know commenters here were nice enough to provide you with resources that could actually help her upon her release.

September 19, 2025 at 5:48 AM
Anonymous said...

Oh -- it took me a while to find out what that thing was at the bottom of MIB's comment.
Apparently it's an emoji representing a "chef's kiss"...So I have to agree with him that disregarding the confidentiality clause was a true work of art. Admitting that you're going to violate this up front is a guarantee that your complaint is going to be thrown out.

September 19, 2025 at 5:58 AM
Anonymous said...

Hey Sid -- how do these complaints help CGM in any way? Will they get her out of prison before Feb 2026?
Will they get her a job, place to live, healthcare once she gets out of prison?

September 20, 2025 at 9:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Man in Black.

Don't know exact meaning of "dizzying intellect." If positive, thanks.

Regarding the confidentiality clause, I did not disregard it. I devoted much in my cover letter discussing it.

September 21, 2025 at 5:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

You miss the point. Ms. Mangum stated in court that she had not had legal counsel in more than eight years, and she requested an attorney be appointed for her. In my letters to Judge Houston I requested that he issue a court order for an attorney from the Durham Public Defender's Office or Indigent Defense Services to represent Ms. Mangum in her post-conviction phase.

Is it your contention that indigent inmates are not entitled to legal representation to address criminal issues?

September 21, 2025 at 5:16 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

In case you haven't been paying attention, all of my complaints filed with the NC Judicial Standards Commission have been automatically thrown out. Because I am not an attorney and am advocating for Ms. Mangum, the Commission will not act in good-faith regarding my grievances. By letting them know in advance of my intentions of publishing my complaint with them, there's a possibility that it might be honorably considered. After all, as Republican dictator once said when trying to win over black voters, "What do I have to lose?"

September 21, 2025 at 5:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

If you read the complaint to its conclusion, you will note that I requested the Commission urge the judges to order the appointment of an attorney for Mangum. It is my hope it will get her released from prison before February 2026.

September 21, 2025 at 5:40 AM
Anonymous said...

You can’t really be this stupid. Read my words. “There is no "right to counsel" in civil cases unless in very few SPECIFIC circumstances (like Child Custody). Ergo, no civil misconduct by judge Somers for "Denial of Rights" in the Mangum v. Nelson case.”

You specifically claim in your complaint that judge Somers violated this “right to counsel” in Mangum v. Nelson. This was a CIVIL case, not criminal. It is MY contention that indigent inmates are not entitled to court appointed legal representation in civil cases, unless there are specific circumstances- like child custody.

September 21, 2025 at 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...

I’m glad you make my point that these complaints do not help Mangum in any way.

September 21, 2025 at 10:53 AM
Man in Black said...

You specifically state in your own letter to the Judicial Standards Commission that you are “aware of the confidentiality clause…but in this instance [you] must disregard it…”

Your words. That you didn’t recognize them proves that, truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

September 21, 2025 at 11:26 AM
Prince Humperdinck said...

I believe it was Judge Houston who presided over Mangum v, Nelson, not Judge Somers.

I believe (and I could be wrong) that Judge Somers presided over Sid’s show cause hearing.

September 22, 2025 at 4:51 AM
Anonymous said...

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that (a) you have standing to bring these complaints and (b) the Commission finds that one or both of the Judges you have complained about committed some act of judicial misconduct, the Commission lacks the authority to grant the relief you have requested.

Mangum is scheduled to be released from prison in approximately five months. There is nothing you have filed or can file between now and then that will result in her being released sooner. However, there are things you can file and do between now and then that can create problems for you and, potentially for Mangum should you get her involved in one of your frivolous flights of fancy.

You can resume making meritless complaints and filing frivolous, repetitive lolsuits after Mangum is released from prison, until the day you die or tire of being sanctioned and/or put in jail for contempt and/or the unauthorized practice of law (whichever comes first). For now, the best thing you can do is lay low and don't do anything to bring unnecessary negative attention to Mangum or her case. It can only do harm.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

September 22, 2025 at 7:41 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)