Tuesday, October 14, 2025

Mangum and Harr v. NC Innocence Inquiry Commission: Motion to Compel Assignment of Legal Counsel to Mangum

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course, Sid doesn't state in his motion that one lawyer quit because he posted client-attorney confidential information on this website, or that her "third and most adept" lawyer had to drop CGM due to a conflict of interest.
Nor does he document his actions that lead to CGM losing other lawyers and even attempting to represent herself for a period of time.

Nor will Sid approve this comment or any other comments posted to his recent blog entries.

Typical.

October 15, 2025 at 6:15 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

Because I have not been receiving any comments recently, which I attributed to the strengths of my posts, I decided to check and see if anyone, other than myself has been able to post comments. My daughter tried to post a comment, but it was not received. Ergo, I probably screwed up and inadvertently switched of the comment section... or possibly it was done by Ai. Who knows.

Anyway, I will try to investigate and remedy the problem, if one exists... which it seems it does. Anyway, my apologies in advance.

As you were.

October 15, 2025 at 6:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

Although it is irrelevant why Ms. Mangum's attorneys asked to be dismissed, the reasons why were not valid. Posting prosecution discovery is not what I would consider attorney-client privileged... it's nothing more than evidence. The fact that Scott Holmes asked to be dismissed as Ms. Mangum's attorney was so he could take advantage of the incentive to be appointed to prominent positions at NCCU School of Law. The conflict of interest reason, which was never explained, was nothing but a pretext.

As far as other attorneys go, the vast majority I never spoke with them because they ignored me or their receptionist refused to set an appointment with them and/or refused on the spot to allow their attorney or firm to represent Ms. Mangum.

October 15, 2025 at 7:02 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

I just found out why I have not been aware of comments being sent. The place for moderation was moved, so I was unaware that comments were received.

What I believe to be about seven comments sent for moderation over the last two blog postings will be copied and pasted below with my responses.

Apologies.

As you were.

October 15, 2025 at 7:06 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Apparently, Sid isn't approving comments anymore. I know for a fact there were several on the previous blog that were never approved, and I posted one here yesterday that still hasn't made it.

I guess Sid's afraid somebody might actually read his Substack piece and come here looking for some background...And they'll see how many times he's been corrected and ignored that correction.


Hey, Anony.

Sorry for not posting your comments earlier. My bad. Please know that I value all comments made on my blog postings, as well as my Substack. As you may know, I face an impending deadline with respect to releasing Ms. Mangum, so my focus has been and is related to the currently filed lawsuit... one which I had hoped would not have been necessary.

October 15, 2025 at 7:12 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


IIRC, the NC IIC made the determination that CGM wasn’t “factually innocent” due to her stabbing (or “poking” Daye, if you prefer) not being in self-defense. Your arguments otherwise, the stabbing was not self defense, it was done as Daye was leaving, and the wound placement and other defensive wounds proved this.

So, yet another foolish civil lolsuit you’ll lose. CGM stays in prison until Feb 2026, and with 4 months left, you’ve done nothing to help her transition back into society despite being told about resources available to her.

Take a bow, Sid.


Hey, Anony.

Neither the IIRC nor the NC IIC can identify the so-called "complication" from the stab wound that resulted in either Daye's brain-death or actual death. That is simply because there was no complication from the stab wound. Clearly the instrument of Daye's death was an endotracheal tube and not a steak knife.

If you can identify the so-called complication from the stab wound that was responsible for Daye's death, please do so. No one else has been able to so I would be very much interested in your input regarding this matter.

October 15, 2025 at 7:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Sid's apparently alive, as he posted another meaningless screed on his substack yesterday. I know I've posted comments since the last one here (dated Sep 22), so it looks like Sid is ignoring this block site. Maybe so -- I'm betting Sid will shut it down prior to CGM's release in an effort to hide it...Because he doesn't want her to see how many times he's been called to task for the stupid sh*t he's done supposedly on her behalf.

So be it -- it doesn't matter, Sid. Once it out there on the interwebs, it pretty much stays forever.


Hey, Anony.

Actually, I am quite proud of this blog site and my Substack... both of which provide information that cannot be found elsewhere. Do you agree with that? Both the legacy corporate media as well as the so-called independent media such as ProPublica and Carolina Public Press are afraid to write articles about Ms. Mangum's murder case... the reason being that they are aware of her innocence and are working in conjunction with other media to keep it hidden from the general public.

October 15, 2025 at 7:26 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


It's been 2 weeks since we heard from Sid....I'm guessing nothing he's done is getting Mangum out of prison in the next 4 months, or he'd be here bragging about it.

Sid -- you ever going to respond to the "Man in Black"' comment from September 21, 2025 at 11:26 AM?


Hey, Anony.

You must have me mixed up with the Republican dictator. Being a narcissist and braggart are not in my genes. Nonetheless, I am working diligently, more so now than ever before, towards seeing Ms. Mangum released... as is evidenced by my most recent lawsuit.

October 15, 2025 at 7:33 AM
Nifong Supporter 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.


Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

You are correct regarding both. It would be understandable, if Judge Houston, in his review of Ms. Mangum's Petition for Judicial Review, was alerted to my involvement and subsequently issued a Show Cause hearing for me. That is why I initially thought Judge Somers was presiding over Ms. Mangum's Petition for Review.

What I believe happened is that Judge Nelson and/or the Wake County Trial Court Administrator recruited Judge Somers to issue the Show Cause order for the purpose of preventing me from testifying at Judge Houston's hearing to dismiss Ms. Mangum's Petition for Judicial Review.

October 15, 2025 at 7:43 AM
Nifong Supporter 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.


Hey, Man in Black.

I expressed my reasons for moving forward with exposing my complaint against Judges Houston and Somers prior to a ruling by the Judicial Standards Commission finding misconduct.

As of today, October 15th, I have not heard from the NC Judicial Standards Commission.

October 15, 2025 at 7:51 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


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


Hey, Anony.

I respectfully disagree. It is my hope that the Commission will find Ms. Mangum is deserving of legal representation. As you know, the filing of a Motion for Appropriate Relief is related to a criminal case. She cannot file an MAR without representation by a Bar-accredited attorney which the Durham Superior Court's Criminal Division would be more likely to take under serious consideration as opposed to her pro se filed MAR.

October 15, 2025 at 8:03 AM
Nifong Supporter 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.


Hey, Anony.

Is it really asking too much for Ms. Mangum to be appointed an attorney so she can file an MAR which will be more likely to be taken seriously by the Durham Superior Court's Criminal Division? What's wrong with that? Let me know.

October 15, 2025 at 8:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

I believe I've caught up with all comments I have missed during my last two blog postings. Now that I know where to find the comments for moderation, I will be sure to post all comments timely and respond to them as soon as possible.

As you were.

October 15, 2025 at 8:10 AM
Anonymous said...

"Although it is irrelevant why Ms. Mangum's attorneys asked to be dismissed, the reasons why were not valid. Posting prosecution discovery is not what I would consider attorney-client privileged.
Yes, they very much were relevant. That you think otherwise only proves the lawyer was correct. As for "what [you] consider attorney-client privileged", you never bother to research, so you wouldn't know -- a real lawyer would.

" Scott Holmes asked to be dismissed....so he could take advantage of the incentive to be appointed to prominent positions at NCCU School of Law."
Scott Holmes was already the director of the Civil Litigation Clinic at NCCU when he withdrew. It was a conflict of interest because a colleague at the CLC was representing another party in the case. This is common knowledge.
That you don't recognize that as a conflict of interest simply shows your inability to do the most basic research, and your overall lack of knowledge of legal matters.

October 15, 2025 at 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...

"Neither the IIRC nor the NC IIC can identify the so-called "complication" from the stab wound that resulted in either Daye's brain-death or actual death. That is simply because there was no complication from the stab wound. Clearly the instrument of Daye's death was an endotracheal tube and not a steak knife."

They don't have to. The fact that she stabbed Daye is enough to prove she's not "factually innocent" of committing a felony.

Now, if photographs or video existed of her at an ATM (for example) at the time the stabbing allegedly occurred, that would prove she was "factually innocent" wouldn't it?

October 15, 2025 at 9:09 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

Discovery is not privileged... unless you can provide a source that says it is. Thankfully, the prosecution did discovery, because Mangum's defense did none. I provided more discovery than Ms. Mangum's defense attorneys with Dr. Wecht's report alone.

Also, Scott Holmes was in private practice when he agreed to represent Ms. Mangum in early 2013. Can you provide a source that I can check that will state when Mr. Holmes accepted his positions at NCCU?

Look forward to hearing from you on these matters.

October 16, 2025 at 4:37 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

I won't debate at this time whether or not Ms. Mangum was factually innocent of committing a felony, because she was not convicted of committing a felony. She was convicted of second-degree murder, and my assertion is that Ms. Mangum is factually innocent of committing murder.

There's a difference between committing a felony and committing murder... would you not agree?

I think I made my point.

October 16, 2025 at 4:44 AM
Anonymous said...

All degrees of murder are classified as felonies. She was convicted of committing a felony, that felony being 2nd degree murder.

Why not answer my hypothetical question?

October 16, 2025 at 4:59 AM
Prince Humperdinck said...

CGM was convicted of committing a felony.

October 16, 2025 at 8:59 AM
Anonymous said...

It is asking too much for Crystal to get special treatment. She is not entitled to counsel for this - no one is. Why should Crystal get special/preferential treatment?

October 16, 2025 at 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...

Sid --Attorney-client privilege begins when an attorney begins representing a client. Communication between the attorney and client is privileged unless the client decides to waive that privilege that information is not to be shared. You posted ON THIS BLOG information that Mangum shared with you that was communicated from her lawyer to her.
By posting it here, you posted client-attorney privileged information. It really is that simple. If you still don't understand, as the attorney that resigned why he considered the information you shared here privileged.

"Can you provide a source that I can check that will state when Mr. Holmes accepted his positions at NCCU?"

Yeah -- it's called google. Or you could just ask Mr. Holmes.

Scott Holmes became Mangum's attorney in March 2013. He withdrew as Mangum's attorney at the end of August, 2013. https://www.wral.com/story/duke-lacrosse-accuser-wants-new-lawyer-on-murder-charge/12836779/

He became the supervising attorney for the Civil Litigation Clinic earlier that month. See his profile on LinkedIn. Or ask him.

October 17, 2025 at 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...

Apparently, Sid is still unaware that comments were received.

October 17, 2025 at 9:05 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

Stealing cashier's checks (larceny of chose in action) is also a felony. I think it is important to be more specific when making references.

October 17, 2025 at 1:19 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

Ms. Mangum was also acquitted of felonies (two counts of larceny of chose in action). That's why I think its important to speak with specificity.

October 17, 2025 at 1:22 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

I've recently found out where comments are being sent for moderation. There was a change, so for a week or so I did not find comments where they had previously been sent for moderation.

I probably will check for comments to be moderated at least once every twenty-four hours... so now that I know where to find the comments, it may just take a bit of time for me to find them, but I should post comments within 24 hours of posting.

October 17, 2025 at 1:28 PM
Prince Humperdinck said...

It’s not the ones she was acquitted of that landed her in prison.

October 17, 2025 at 3:39 PM
Prince Humperdinck said...

You see, this is why your lack of knowledge regarding legal processes and your refusal to do any research do not help her CGM any way.
Constitutional rights to a state--appointed attorney apply to the felony (there's that word again) trial and the appeals -- as the appeals are considered a continuation of the initial criminal case.
A MAR is not a continuation of the criminal case. a MAR is a separate proceeding -- an attack on a conviction or sentence.

Anonymous @October 16, 2025 at 10:50 AM is correct. You're asking for CGM to get special treatment.

If you don't believe me, ask your good friend James Coleman or Mike Nifong.

I challenge you to find 1 instance of the state of North Carolina providing an attorney to an inmate for the sole purpose of filing a MAR.

October 18, 2025 at 1:43 PM
Anonymous said...

It looks like Sid also filed a Motion to Compel EDNC Clerk to issue subpoenas...It's unclear who Sid is trying to subpoena, but I'm going out on a limb here and guess he's trying to subpoena the 2 physicians again.

October 20, 2025 at 5:55 PM
Nifong Supporter said...

Hey, Anony.
Yes, you are correct. If you'll remember, when in Mangum v. Deberry when she wrote a letter to the clerk requesting subpoenas, the U.S. District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan construed the letter as a motion and denied it, for reasons I am unable to understand. So to circumvent any confusion, I thought it best to simply move forward with a motion.

Time permitting, I will post the motion. Have been busy trying to find an attorney for Crystal and doing Substack pages, participating in the No Kings Rally, and other activities about which I cannot divulge at this time.

October 21, 2025 at 10:34 AM
Anonymous said...

”for reasons I am unable to understand…”

If you’d bother to do any research, then you would be able to understand. Of course , that’s not going to happen.

Now, why don’t you address the post from Anonymous @ October 16, 2025 at 10:50 AM, and followed up by Prince Humperdinck on October 18?

October 22, 2025 at 4:48 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)