Tuesday, November 11, 2025

Plaintiffs Pro Se's Motion to Unseal and Produce 18-page Document from Personnel Folder

Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

2 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous
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


Hey, Anony.

First of all, plans were well underway in early 2020 for a prison wedding... I had purchased rings, the prison chaplains had been notified and helped with the arrangement of the wedding, I arranged for a minister, and prepared preliminary papers. It was the State that cancelled the ceremony due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

I don't understand your reasoning? Do you really believe Mangum would be better off if I did not file lawsuits and motions? You have no idea how much I have invested financially. I've spent countless hours working on Ms. Mangum's case. I've produced more discovery than Mangum's defense attorneys... e.g., Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's eight-page report. Finally, I spent thirty days in jail on a bogus reason for the purpose of preventing me from testifying at Ms. Mangum's hearing. So, yes I have done a significant amount to help her.

November 11, 2025 at 6:16 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous
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


Hey, Anony.

Judge Ridgeway stated the 18-page document was relevant... and he allowed attorneys from both sides to view it. Clearly the judge did not want me to see the 18-page document; so that is why he stipulated it was for "attorney eyes only." So much for confidentiality. Crystal Mangum, by acting pro se, is entitled to have access to exculpatory information. Withholding the 18-page document from Ms. Mangum is a Brady Rule violation.

Comprende?

November 11, 2025 at 6:23 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)