HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP! IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!
As was noted by a recent poster, on October 16, 2025, I filed a motion to compel issuance of validly signed subpoenas to facilitate the discovery process.
Due to the lack of links, the process of posting the documents doesn't require much time or effort, so that is why it is posted rather expeditiously. Can think of only one other motion to file in the future. With any luck, Ms. Mangum will finally be able to spend Thanksgiving and Christmas with her family.
Unknown commented on "Mangum and Harr v. NC Innocence Inquiry Commission: Motion to Compel Assignment of Legal Counsel to Mangum" 14 hours ago ”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?
Hey, Anony.
I am assuming your remarks are referencing the motion to compel issuance of valid subpoenas. Can you explain to me why, if initial discovery is exempted for an inmate expressing her innocence while incarcerated, should be denied the issuance of subpoenas to pursue discovery?
Really? Your comment prior to mine was referencing Mangum v. Deberry. Let me refresh your memory: ".... 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..."
It's literally RIGHT THERE in the order from Judge Flanagan. The motion for issuance of subpoenas was denied because the decision on the motion to dismiss was pending.
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?
They explain (PH in detail) why the motion to compel assignment of legal counsel will fail.
Of course, the lolsuit itself will fail because the NC IIC can't grant the relief being sought -- and you provide NO legal foundation for the request. FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) .
"With any luck, Ms. Mangum will finally be able to spend Thanksgiving and Christmas with her family." Not in 2025, pal. That's not a prediction -- it's a spoiler.
As much as I would like to say that Sid has taken the comments here seriously and is busy researching his errors in his recent lolsuit (trust me, it’s his, not CGM’s. I doubt she’s even read the filings), we all know that isn’t true.
He still hasn’t responded to the anonymous and Prince Humperdinck comments regarding the silly motion to assign CGM a lawyer, nor has he responded to my comments about why the lolsuit will fail.
In the most recent motion, Sid mentions “senseless humiliation heaped upon him” by the NC Legislative Black Caucus in 2019. I looked through the 2019 blog entries and couldn’t find anything about this. Does anyone have any details?
Sid again is trying his “felony murder” argument - this time on his Substack. In the spirit of full transparency, why didn’t you add the statements from this blog that explain in detail why felony murder charges were never in play?
He also doesn’t mention my argument about why CGM isn’t getting court-appointed attorneys to help her with “her” MAR. Sid also admits that CGM “…is severely handicapped in having a full understanding of her own complaint, motions, and other documents…”, proving that she isn’t creating them. On a side note, he continues to put scare quotes around the word innocent when referring to the Duke LAX three, conveniently ignoring CGM’s own words that she “…testified falsely against them by saying that they raped me when they didn’t”.
Sid's at it again - this time filing a motion to compel delivery of Inmate Legal mail. The thing is, CGM gets her mail -- but it is converted to a file and delivered via tablet....It's a policy NC implemented due to the number of drugs being sent to inmates. Apparently, people were soaking the letters in drugs, and the inmates could smoke (or eat, I guess) them. I think his argument is that his mail is "legal mail" and should be delivered like a letter from a lawyer/law firm -- simply because he writes "Legal Mail" on the envelope. Sid -- if that's all it takes ANYONE could send an inmate a letter with the words "Legal Mail" written on it and it would bypass the delivery via tablet process. Hell, they could write a letter soaked in drugs, put YOUR name/address and the words "Legal Mail" on the envelope, and send it to any inmate. You're asking for CGM to get preferential treatment.
I'm a senior citizen who believes that the state of North Carolina has harshly, excessively, and unjustly treated former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.
8 comments:
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!
As was noted by a recent poster, on October 16, 2025, I filed a motion to compel issuance of validly signed subpoenas to facilitate the discovery process.
Due to the lack of links, the process of posting the documents doesn't require much time or effort, so that is why it is posted rather expeditiously. Can think of only one other motion to file in the future. With any luck, Ms. Mangum will finally be able to spend Thanksgiving and Christmas with her family.
As you were.
Unknown commented on "Mangum and Harr v. NC Innocence Inquiry Commission: Motion to Compel Assignment of Legal Counsel to Mangum"
14 hours ago
”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?
Hey, Anony.
I am assuming your remarks are referencing the motion to compel issuance of valid subpoenas. Can you explain to me why, if initial discovery is exempted for an inmate expressing her innocence while incarcerated, should be denied the issuance of subpoenas to pursue discovery?
Really? Your comment prior to mine was referencing Mangum v. Deberry. Let me refresh your memory:
".... 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..."
It's literally RIGHT THERE in the order from Judge Flanagan. The motion for issuance of subpoenas was denied because the decision on the motion to dismiss was pending.
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?
They explain (PH in detail) why the motion to compel assignment of legal counsel will fail.
Of course, the lolsuit itself will fail because the NC IIC can't grant the relief being sought -- and you provide NO legal foundation for the request. FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) .
"With any luck, Ms. Mangum will finally be able to spend Thanksgiving and Christmas with her family."
Not in 2025, pal. That's not a prediction -- it's a spoiler.
As much as I would like to say that Sid has taken the comments here seriously and is busy researching his errors in his recent lolsuit (trust me, it’s his, not CGM’s. I doubt she’s even read the filings), we all know that isn’t true.
He still hasn’t responded to the anonymous and Prince Humperdinck comments regarding the silly motion to assign CGM a lawyer, nor has he responded to my comments about why the lolsuit will fail.
In the most recent motion, Sid mentions “senseless humiliation heaped upon him” by the NC Legislative Black Caucus in 2019. I looked through the 2019 blog entries and couldn’t find anything about this. Does anyone have any details?
Sid again is trying his “felony murder” argument - this time on his Substack.
In the spirit of full transparency, why didn’t you add the statements from this blog that explain in detail why felony murder charges were never in play?
He also doesn’t mention my argument about why CGM isn’t getting court-appointed attorneys to help her with “her” MAR.
Sid also admits that CGM “…is severely handicapped in having a full understanding of her own complaint, motions, and other documents…”, proving that she isn’t creating them.
On a side note, he continues to put scare quotes around the word innocent when referring to the Duke LAX three, conveniently ignoring CGM’s own words that she “…testified falsely against them by saying that they raped me when they didn’t”.
Sid's at it again - this time filing a motion to compel delivery of Inmate Legal mail.
The thing is, CGM gets her mail -- but it is converted to a file and delivered via tablet....It's a policy NC implemented due to the number of drugs being sent to inmates. Apparently, people were soaking the letters in drugs, and the inmates could smoke (or eat, I guess) them.
I think his argument is that his mail is "legal mail" and should be delivered like a letter from a lawyer/law firm -- simply because he writes "Legal Mail" on the envelope.
Sid -- if that's all it takes ANYONE could send an inmate a letter with the words "Legal Mail" written on it and it would bypass the delivery via tablet process. Hell, they could write a letter soaked in drugs, put YOUR name/address and the words "Legal Mail" on the envelope, and send it to any inmate.
You're asking for CGM to get preferential treatment.
Post a Comment