Tuesday, November 4, 2025

Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Proceedings and Scheduling Prehearing Conference

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

12 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous
They either treat a letter from a pro se litigant as a motion or ignore it, Sid - and by “they”, I mean the judge- not any other court personnel.

I wasn’t aware of the contents of the letter, but this sounds like it can be treated as a motion.

You see, you cannot request a "speedy trial" from a court case manager in a civil case (a speedy trial is a constitutional right for criminal defendants, not a standard right in civil cases). You can, however, make a motion for one.

So there you go - Option 2.

See? 2 options.
And it doesn’t reflect poorly on the case manager or other court personnel whatever action the judge decides to take.

You really are ignoring information that you can literally have your phone find for you in seconds.
November 2, 2025 at 5:23 AM


Hey, Anony.

First let me clear up the "letter" issue. When trying to get subpoenas for Ms. Mangum, the clerk of court said that the issuance of valid subpoenas cannot be done without a request from Ms. Mangum herself. Specifically, Ms. Mangum was required to write a letter and request that she be issued a valid subpoena before one can be issued. So, Ms. Mangum wrote a handwritten letter to the clerk requesting a subpoena, per the clerk's instruction. What is incomprehensible to me is how a simple letter can be construed as a motion... especially when the format is of a letter and not a legal motion.

Now, regarding the "speedy trial," it is my impression that the case manager directs the flow of the process. I believe that the case manager determines when to present a collection of legal documents to a judge. My concern is that the case manager will not expeditiously deliver documents to the judge. That was the basis for my letter to the case manager.
Comprende?

November 5, 2025 at 7:11 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous
I believe that CGM should be treated as any other N.C. inmate. What you’re asking for is for her to be allowed something not allowed to any other inmate.

Ask your good friend Shan Carter if he gets “legal mail” from non-lawyers. Ask him how he manages filing motions and complaints on his behalf.
October 29, 2025 at 7:11 PM


Hey, Anony.

The truth is that Crystal Mangum is treated differently than other inmates. Ms. Mangum is currently denied access to hardcopy legal mail supposedly because it was not mailed from an attorney's office. Other inmates with attorneys are going to receive legal mail from their own lawyers.

However, inmates acting as pro se litigants don't need to receive hardcopies of the legal mail they filed because they drafted the documents. There is a difference in Ms. Mangum's case because she is a pro se co-plaintiff who does not draft the legal documents filed on her behalf, and ergo the only way she is capable of receiving such documents, her co-plaintiff non-lawyer must directly send her the hardcopies.

That is why the only two options available for Ms. Mangum to receive hardcopies is by either allowing my legal mail to be delivered or by the courts sending legal mail that I draft on Mangum's behalf to Ms. Mangum.

Consider yourself enlightened. Let me know if further elucidation is required.

November 5, 2025 at 7:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous
So, you you don’t have proof that CGM ( or any other N.C. inmate) has the right to a court appointed attorney beyond their felony trial and appeal.
Thanks for that clarification.

You also can’t identify a legal precedent that shows that a MAR a continuation of a criminal case, and not a separate legal proceeding.
Thanks for that clarification.

Now, seeing that you have clarified that both the above statements are true, I can only assume you realize that your civil lolsuit is baseless.

With regard to the N.C. General Assembly statutes:
Key aspects of the statute

Case Acceptance: The commission must have credible, verifiable evidence of innocence that was not presented at trial or considered in a previous hearing to accept a case for review.

Application Process: A convicted person must assert complete innocence of the felony and any lesser offenses to be considered for review.
Referral: Claims can be referred to the commission by any court, a state or local agency, the claimant, or the claimant's counsel.

The first italicized statement explains why the IIC will not accept CGM’s case. Neither your opinion or Dr. Wecht’s opinion are evidence, and Dr. Wecht’s opinion was considered in a previous MAR.
CGM fails on the application process because she cannot assert innocence in the stabbing of Daye.

Finally, you cannot refer her to the IIC, as you are not a state or local agency, the claimant, or the claimant’s counsel.

Next time, read the statutes before you reference them./
November 1, 2025 at 7:05 PM


Hey, Anony.

Clearly, the surgeons who operated on Reginald Daye and treated him during his hospitalization are in the best position to determine whether or not there was a complication from the stab wound. They were never subpoenaed or testified or presented affidavits. The two surgeons' potential contributions in challenging the spurious conclusions of Dr. Clay Nichols are even better than the assessment by world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril H. Wecht because they were firsthand directly involved.

Because Dr. Sabino Zani and Dr. Luigi Pascarella were not heard from at trial or post-conviction, Ms. Mangum's case qualifies for evaluation and representation by the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission.

Don't you agree?

November 5, 2025 at 7:48 AM

November 5, 2025 at 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...

"What is incomprehensible to me is how a simple letter can be construed as a motion... especially when the format is of a letter and not a legal motion."
Because you don't bother to research the law.
"Now, regarding the "speedy trial," it is my impression that the case manager directs the flow of the process. I believe that the case manager determines when to present a collection of legal documents to a judge."

Regardless of your beliefs (which are often wrong), the case manager cannot expedite a civil suit. The case manager is responsible for managing a large number of things -- from caseflow management (ensuring that all parties adhere to deadlines, facilitating the orderly conduct of proceedings, assessing court order compliance), to technology management, to facility management. The case manager serves a very important role -- but they cannot control the pace of litigation or ensure that the legal process remains efficient. That is the responsibility of the judge.
...Which is WHY these types of requests from pro se litigants are treated as motions.

Consider yourself elucidated.

November 5, 2025 at 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...

"The truth is that Crystal Mangum is treated differently than other inmates. Ms. Mangum is currently denied access to hardcopy legal mail supposedly because it was not mailed from an attorney's office. Other inmates with attorneys are going to receive legal mail from their own lawyers."

Do other inmates without attorneys receive "legal mail" from anyone not a lawyer/law firm or the court?
It's a yes or no question and deserves a yes/no answer.
If yes, name the inmate that is able to receive "legal mail" from someone other than a lawyer/law firm or court.

If the answer to the first question is "no", then she is NOT treated differently than other inmates.
If you answer to the first question is "yes", but you cannot name the inmate able to do this, then the actual answer to the first question is "no".

Capisce?

November 5, 2025 at 9:21 AM
Anonymous said...

"There is a difference in Ms. Mangum's case because she is a pro se co-plaintiff who does not draft the legal documents filed on her behalf"

You realize that your lolsuit, while it lists you as a co-plaintiff, does not identify any civil rights that the NC IIC deprived you of. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

"Liable to the party injured” = Liable to the individuals whose rights have been violated.

Before you argue that they violated your civil rights by not allowing you to present her case to them, by the very statutes that created them, they can't accept your referral.

YOU have no standing in this civil lolsuit.
Any document you prepare for CGM is by definition not pro se. Any document you send to her is not "legal mail".
The entire lolsuit should be thrown out, as you are violating your permanent injunction by filing it.

November 5, 2025 at 12:05 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


HEY, EVERYBODY. LISTEN UP!!
I ALMOST FORGOT... Hope you have a fab Guy Fawkes Day.

Tonight will watch "V for Vendetta."

As you were.

November 5, 2025 at 1:06 PM
Anonymous said...

No, I don’t. For reasons I’ve already listed.
Your argument that the 2 physicians didn’t testify is not the same as “credible, verifiable evidence of innocence”.
She can’t claim complete innocence because she testified to stabbing Daye.
You can’t refer her case to the IIC.

November 5, 2025 at 5:33 PM
Anonymous said...

The NC IIC’s lawyer has filed a notice of appearance. That means all future documents Sid has to send through her, and he can’t contact the IIC directly.

November 6, 2025 at 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...

Sid continues to lie about felony murder and many other things. He better delete this website before Crystal gets out in February or she will see that he's been lying to her about actually trying to help her get out, and in fact has been damaging her ability to do just that.

I wonder what he's going to do when she gets out. He's already admitted that the marriage thing was a sham and isn't going to happen.

November 11, 2025 at 5:47 AM
Anonymous said...

Sid's filed yet another motion. this time to "unseal the 18-page document (filed in Durham County Superior Court) and compel delivery of a copy to" CGM and himself.
Pretty sure this "18-page document" is Dr. Nichols' personnel record. If so, this is at least the 2nd time Sid has requested this document, as a similar motion was made (and the motion subsequently rejected) in what became Mangum v. Perry.
The motion was rejected because a personnel record is considered a confidential document protected under state law, and Mangum does not have a right to personally inspect or possess this document.

As this document has nothing to do with the NC IIC depriving CGM of her due process rights, it will be rejected here as well.

I'm calling it now -- Swing and a miss, Sid.

November 11, 2025 at 1:57 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

Fact is that I never contacted the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission directly. I inadvertently listed the NC IIC's address on the Summons and Complaint that I intended to serve on the NC DOJ. When I realized the Sheriff's office tried to serve the Summons and Complaint on the addressee, I recalled the Service of Summons and filed a second Summons and Complaint which was successfully served on the NC DOJ. All motions were delivered to the NC DOJ.

November 11, 2025 at 6:03 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)