Wednesday, October 22, 2025

Plaintiffs Pro Se Motion to Compel EDNC Clerk to issue valid subpoenas

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

3 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...


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.

October 22, 2025 at 6:34 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


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?

October 23, 2025 at 6:52 AM
Anonymous said...

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) .

October 23, 2025 at 11:27 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)