Tuesday, November 11, 2025

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

Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

29 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
Anonymous said...

While you certainly can file a motion to have documents unsealed from a separate criminal case, the documents in question have to have a direct bearing on the lawsuit at hand.
Dr. Nichols’ personnel files have no bearing on whether the NC IIC committed the violations you’ve alleged. Dr. Nichols did not work for the NC IIC at any time during the period you’ve alleged they violated CGM’s rights.

Finally, CGM’s lawyer was able to view the personnel file. Since the defense viewed the documents, there is no Brady violation. You have no right to personally inspect or possess this document.

November 12, 2025 at 2:01 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

I challenge you to find any other order wherein a judge, upon sealing a document puts in a stipulation "for attorney eyes only." Clearly, the objective of this order was to prevent me, a non-lawyer, from seeing the document. In other words, the document could be seen by attorneys. Follow me thus far?

The crux of Mangum's complaint is that she has been Colin Kaepernicked (blacklisted) by North Carolina Lawyers, and as a result has no possibility to see the 18-page document. If Mangum was able to retain a lawyer, then said lawyer could access the 18-page document. Ergo, its relevance.

November 12, 2025 at 4:35 AM
Anonymous said...

"For Attorney Eyes Only" IS allowed per The North Carolina State Bar's 2019 Formal Ethics Opinion 7.

it's incumbent on YOU to cite a case in your motion wherein a judge unsealed a "for attorney eyes only" document from a criminal case for a different, unrelated civil case. You can't, because it doesn't happen.

There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady, which addressed only exculpatory evidence, did not create one.
There is NO Brady Rule Violation.

You are correct that the objective was to prevent others from seeing this document. I can't see this document. You know why? Personnel
records are considered a confidential document protected under state law, and I don't have the right to personally inspect or possess Nichols' personnel record.

I challenge you to cite a source to prove me wrong.

November 12, 2025 at 11:55 AM
Anonymous said...

Since you didn't answer the first time, I'll ask again:

Do other North Carolina 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.

November 12, 2025 at 11:59 AM
Anonymous said...

Yeah it was relevant…In the murder trial. This is a civil suit against the NC IIC, which wasn’t involved with the murder trial and never had Nichols as an employee.

November 12, 2025 at 5:56 PM
Anonymous said...

What was in the letter you sent to the court clerk?

November 13, 2025 at 8:03 AM
Prince Humperdinck said...

Hold on - In the same motion where you cite Brady in regards to this "18 page document", you state that Judge Ridgeway "allowed counsel from both sides to view it..". You realize you're stating here that there was NO Brady violation?

I can't believe you wasted the energy to create it. I hope you filed it electronically, because it's not worth the paper it would be printed on.

November 13, 2025 at 8:39 AM
Anonymous said...

"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."

So much for confidentiality?!? What do you even mean here? Of course the judge doesn't want you to see this document. The judge doesn't me to see it either. I'd go so far as to say that the judge doesn't want ANYONE who's read or posted on this blog in its entire history to see this document.

November 15, 2025 at 5:48 PM
Anonymous said...

Well, Sid?

November 16, 2025 at 7:02 PM
Anonymous said...

Where’s Sid?

November 18, 2025 at 5:08 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

No. The problem, as I see it, is that other North Carolina inmates have access to attorneys. Crystal Mangum doesn't. That's the reason for filing the motion.

Hope this satisfactorily answers your question.

November 18, 2025 at 5:22 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

I believe the letter to which you are referring had to do with the date by which a response to the original complaint is due by the Defense attorney. Basically, a procedural question. To date I have received no reply.

November 18, 2025 at 5:26 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

Actually, I filed all my briefs and pleadings manually, using paper.

Yes, technically it can be said that Judge Ridgeway complied with the Brady Rule by allowing both sides to view the 18-page document. This, however, is not a usual situation because in most cases the defendant obtains discovery from the plaintiff/prosecution. In Mangum's case, the discovery didn't come from the Durham District Attorney's Office, but from the Judge.

Mangum believes there is exculpatory evidence in the 18-page document that she is deserving of having access. In subsequent hearings, Mangum has tried to obtain the 18-page document, not from opposing counsel, but from a judge who placed it under seal and stipulated it was for "attorney eyes only."

So, keep in mind that the 18-page document is not typical discovery... and Ms. Mangum should definitely have access to it.

November 18, 2025 at 6:11 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Well... what?

November 18, 2025 at 6:12 PM
Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

I'm here. Keep in mind that I am busy trying to get Ms. Mangum freed in time for the holidays. Thanksgiving might be slipping away, but I think I have a good chance with Christmas.

November 18, 2025 at 6:14 PM
Prince Humperdinck said...

"Yes, technically it can be said that Judge Ridgeway complied with the Brady Rule by allowing both sides to view the 18-page document...."

Then technically, there's no Brady violation.
Which renders your whole motion moot.

November 19, 2025 at 6:40 AM
Anonymous said...

Yeah -- that answers my question.
You're asking for special treatment for Crystal Mangum that no other inmate gets.
She can still read your so-called "legal mail" through the same channels other inmates read their mail, so it's not like she isn't getting access to mail at all.

November 19, 2025 at 6:43 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous
Yeah -- that answers my question.
You're asking for special treatment for Crystal Mangum that no other inmate gets.
She can still read your so-called "legal mail" through the same channels other inmates read their mail, so it's not like she isn't getting access to mail at all.
November 19, 2025 at 6:43 AM


Hey, Anony.

For all intents and purposes, Crystal Mangum is treated differently than all other inmates. Her circumstances are different, as well. Whereas other inmates have access to post-conviction legal representation, Ms. Mangum has been denied. That is the essence of the current lawsuit.

Even if my legal documents were scanned by the parasitic third party in Maryland and made available for viewing on her tablet, it is next to impossible for her to study them. Physical hardcopies enable one to rapidly access papers from documents and jump from one page to another. As a co-plaintiff, she is deserving of having hardcopy access to documents submitted to her.

Keep in mind, the legal documents filed by the NC DOJ will be hardcopy-mailed to Ms. Mangum... they will not be sent to the Maryland middleman for scanning. Right?
<>/b

November 20, 2025 at 5:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Prince Humperdinck
"Yes, technically it can be said that Judge Ridgeway complied with the Brady Rule by allowing both sides to view the 18-page document...."

Then technically, there's no Brady violation.
Which renders your whole motion moot.
November 19, 2025 at 6:40 AM


Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

As I said previously, Judge Ridgeway's withholding of evidence from Ms. Mangum is different than opposing counsel withholding evidence. So, technically, the Brady Rule may not even be in play in Mangum's 2013 trial.

At issue is Mangum being able to access exculpatory evidence... which is likely relevant in the 18-page document. The question for you is: Do you believe that Ms. Mangum is entitled to see the 18-page document in Dr. Nichols' personnel folder? Keep in mind the credibility of Dr. Nichols is at the heart of her attempts to overturn her conviction.

November 20, 2025 at 5:27 AM
Anonymous said...

The NC DOJ is a legal entity. Thus, they can send "legal mail" to CGM.
You are not; thus, you cannot send "legal mail" to CGM.

Further, what can be distinguished as "legal mail" is determined by the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction (NCDAC) and the various state statutes and regulations. -- the DOJ, NC IIC, or the courts do not make this decision.

November 20, 2025 at 9:58 AM
Anonymous said...

...Forgot to mention -- Court clerks are not authorized to copy and send documents to inmates. See NCGS 7a.
The court can't compel the clerk to do something they are not authorized to do.
All of this information can easily be googled. you should try it sometime.

November 20, 2025 at 10:12 AM
Prince Humperdinck said...

"The question for you is: Do you believe that Ms. Mangum is entitled to see the 18-page document in Dr. Nichols' personnel folder?"

No, she is not entitled to see it. See the post from Anonymous @November 12, 2025 at 11:55 AM.

Calling the 18-page personnel record "likely relevant" is admitting you only speculate that the document is exculpatory.
Discovery is not authorized based on speculation of what the evidence
may be. Hill v. Ozmint.

November 20, 2025 at 10:59 AM
Anonymous said...

I know that with the waiver of service, the NC IIC has until Dec 20th to respond to the initial complaint. How does that work for the subsequent motions?
Help me out here Sid -- They don't need to respond until the court makes a ruling on the motion, correct?

November 21, 2025 at 6:30 AM
Anonymous said...

The motions are all going to fail, so it doesn’t matter.

There is no constitutional right to a court-appointed counsel after the first appeal.(motion #1)
A judge would not compel a clerk to issue a subpoena for a case that is completely unrelated to the court's own jurisdiction or a case over which the judge has no authority. (motion #2)
Sid’s not a lawyer, and him writing “legal mail” on the envelope doesn’t make his letters “legal mail”. If that’s all it took, every NC inmate would be receiving “legal mail” from anyone not a lawyer.(motion #3)
By signing the waiver of service, Sid invalidated his own motion to expedite hearings.(motion #4)
Mangum is not entitled to see Dr. Nichols’ personnel files. See my comments from November 12 and Prince Humperdinck’s comments from November 20.
(motion #5)

November 21, 2025 at 5:56 PM
Anonymous said...

60 days from the time the court received the signed the waiver of service…So 20 Dec 2025.

November 21, 2025 at 6:02 PM
Anonymous said...

Finally, the NC IIC does not have the power to order an inmate’s release. the NC IIC only has the authority to investigate claims of factual innocence and, if warranted, refer a case for judicial review.
The lolsuit will fail, as the NC IIC cannot grant the requested relief, even IF every claim in the lawsuit were true. Rule 12(b)(6).

November 22, 2025 at 5:40 AM
Anonymous said...

I anticipate sanctions against Sid and Mangum for this loco motion.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

November 23, 2025 at 5:50 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)