Saturday, July 25, 2026

Crystal Mangum, Sidney Harr, M.D. v. ABC-11/WTVD News: Defamation lawsuit

ABOVE BUTTON: New Substack to be posted Sunday, August 16, 2026
" 'Justice rules for those with power' ..the State, Duke University, and ABC-11 News hold power, but Crystal Mangum has something more powerful on her side... the Truth."
ABOVE BUTTON: This Substack was posted Sunday, August 9, 2026
"Newsworthiness is subjective with regards to Crystal Mangum... Stories about the Duke Lacrosse case are newsworthy, but those about the death of her boyfriend Reginald Daye are not!"

35 comments:

Doggie Howser said...

Any guesses as to how much jail time Sid servers when he is found in criminal contempt again?

A Durham Man said...

Sid:

What is the basis of your claim against WTVD (not Crystal’s)? How have you been defamed?

dhall said...

Why are you a co-plaintiff in this lawsuit? You were never mentioned in the news article. Standing requires that a plaintiff suffer a direct, personal injury to their own reputation.

Anonymous said...

Is CGM aware of this lolsuit?

Anonymous said...

The Associated Press (AP) and later USA Today reported in 2013 that "The woman who falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape was convicted of second-degree murder Friday in the stabbing death of her boyfriend."

UPI reported in 2013 that "A North Carolina woman who falsely claimed three Duke University lacrosse players raped her in 2006 was convicted Friday of murder for killing her boyfriend.

Crystal Mangum, 32, stabbed live-in boyfriend Reginald Daye, 46, with a kitchen knife during an April 3, 2011, argument."

The facts are:
CGM stabbed Daye.
Daye died
CGM was convicted of 2nd degree murder

The jury was convinced that the stabbing resulted in Daye's death. Thus, the jury made the decision that the stabbing was, in fact, deadly.
This is yet another pitiful attempt to re-litigate the murder trial in civil court, and it will fail.
CGM should let the court know she had no idea this lolsuit was filed and that her signature was forged (as Harr has admitted to doing).

Anonymous said...

This is a frivolous and malicious lolsuit. Froman 3:14 says the court will make short work of it. Sid will likely be sanctioned. And that's the bottom line, because Stone Cold said so.

Stone Cold Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

This lolsuit is going to fail.
Whether you like it, or you don't like it, learn to love it! It's the best thing going today!

Anonymous said...

What is great is that despite all the lawsuits he's filed, Sid still can't read the rules on how to properly serve them. He doesn't even have that right on this lawsuit.

Nana D said...

Sidney: When will you respond to the critics and naysayers who are questioning your defamation suit?

Anonymous said...

Why this lolsuit will fail.

As someone (dhall, maybe?) pointed out, CGM, whether she likes it or not, is a public figure. This means the burden of proof for defamation is much higher than it would for a private citizen.

Aside from Sid not having actual standing, CGM has to prove:
1. ABC-11 knew the statement was completely untrue when they made it.

2. ABC-11 had serious doubts about the truth of the statement but published or stated it anyway.

Nothing in Sid’s lolsuit proves either.

I should also point out - if a plaintiff already possesses a thoroughly ruined reputation in the community, courts may rule they are "libel-proof," meaning the new statement could not possibly cause further legal damage.

Let’s see if Sid has the guts to respond.

Anonymous said...

Why haven't you posted my comments, Sid?

Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Doggie.

First of all, the reason I was jailed in January 2025 was to prevent me from being a witness at Ms. Mangum's hearing in her Petition for Judicial Review.

Second of all, I am a pro se party in the lawsuit, ergo, I am not in violation of any contempt of court order.

Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Durham Man.

I will address that issue if it arises.

Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, dhall.

If that issue arises, I will address it.

Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

To paraphrase our Republican dictator, "That's a stupid question!!!"

Unlike the demented Republican dictator, I do not mind answering dumb questions.

Yes.

Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

Hah! You managed to omit a few critical facts!
The stab wound Ms. Mangum inflicted was nonfatal.
The stab wound did not cause Mr. Daye's brain-death.
Mr. Daye was electively removed from life-support because he was brain-dead.
The jury was never told about the esophageal intubation and instead were lied to by attorneys on both sides who stated that an infection stemming from the stab wound caused his death.

The jury's verdict was made without them being made aware of the facts of Mr. Daye's death. Not only that, but the medical examiner committed material perjury... did he not? Did he not testify twice under direct exam that Daye's spleen was not available for examination at autopsy because it had been removed eleven days prior during emergency surgery? Not only that, but his autopsy report included a description of the organ which he testified was not available for postmortem examination.

Mangum's conviction was the result of a vindictive prosecution... similar to the the prosecution of the sandwich thrower, prosecution of Leticia James, prosecution of James Comey for taking a photo of seashells, and the felony vandalism prosecution of the Olympian rower.

Comprende?

Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Stone Cold Abe.

At issue in the defamation lawsuit is whether or not Mr. Daye's demise was a "stabbing death" and whether or not he was "deadly stabbed." If ABC-11 News can prove he died due to the stab wound, then, I would agree that the defamation lawsuit would be frivolous... but it isn't so I won't.

Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Nana D.

Please take into consideration that I am one individual, who has responsibility for the care of a cat, who must take time to sleep and eat. I am not a multi-person law firm. Ergo, please try to hold onto your stallions.

What I would ask of you is the following: Do you believe Mr. Daye died secondary to an infection from a stab wound?

Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

I not only have guts to respond, but to use my own name.

Yes, I agree that Ms. Mangum is a public figure and the burden is higher than for a private citizen. ABC-11 was repeatedly sent notice requesting a correction of its false assertions long before a lawsuit was filed. I was totally ignored.

Do you believe ABC-11 had an obligation to make a correction or respond to claims of falsities in its stories?

Regardless of her reputation, the defamation against Ms. Mangum is per se which implies that the proof of damages is not required.

Hope this edification provides satisfaction.

Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Anony.

Really?!!? Many commenters use the handle "Anonymous." How am I supposed to know of which comments you are referring. It would help if you use a commenter-name, either real or fictitious, so that I can respond directly to you.

Nifong Supporter said...


HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

As I told Nana D, I am one person doing the work of a large legal firm... administering a lawsuit, posting blogs, publishing a Substack, writing letters, trying to get an appointment with individuals, etc. Subsequently, responding to comments on this blog site is on the back burner. Whenever I come across comments that need moderation, I will post them immediately. However, it may take some time before I respond to them. Ergo, please hold on to your stallions, as I will respond as soon as possible.

As you were.

Anonymous said...

CGM can’t claim ABC-11 falsely defamed her by publishing an article containing details of the crime she was convicted for.

You see,to be recognized as constitutional defamation per se because they are obviously harmful to the subject’s reputation without the need for further explanation or additional facts.
Besides, news entities ranging from the BBC to the Christian Science Monitor reported that CGM was convicted of second-degree murder Friday in the stabbing death of Daye.

Anonymous said...

CGM can’t claim ABC-11 falsely defamed her by publishing an article containing details of the crime she was convicted for.

You see,to be recognized as constitutional defamation per se because they are obviously harmful to the subject’s reputation without the need for further explanation or additional facts.
Besides, news entities ranging from the BBC to the Christian Science Monitor reported that CGM was convicted of second-degree murder Friday in the stabbing death of Daye.

dhall said...

I doubt that it will get that far, so I’m not surprised you won’t answer.

Anonymous said...

Libel proof. CGM possesses a thoroughly ruined reputation in the community. Nothing anyone writes about her WRT Daye’s death can ruin her reputation further.
This lolsuit is going down like a sweet muffin.

dhall said...

Dr. Harr - Your didn’t respond to points 1 and 2 above. Google “actual malice test”, and explain to us where your “lolsuit” proves actual malice.

dhall said...

You were jailed for violating an injunction against practicing law without a license that has been in place since 2013. You could not show the judge that you had complied with the injunction.
You have always held the opinion that if you don’t like a law, it shouldn’t apply to you, and your argument is always the same. -“Laws are not deified commandments handed down from the heavens like manna….”. It’s a silly argument. If you don’t like a law, work to get it changed. You ignore it at your own peril.

Anonymous said...

What?

That issue has already been settled. Mangum was convicted of murdering Mr. Daye. The cause of death was determined to be complications from a stab wound inflicted by Mangum.

You do not get to relitigate the cause and manner of Mr. Daye's death in your civil defamation lolsuit. You will not be able to use your defamation lolsuit to collaterally attack the verdict in the criminal case. The only issue is if and how the defendants defamed you and Mangum by accurately reporting that Mangum was convicted of murdering Mr. Daye by stabbing him.

Your lolsuit is frivolous and malicious, because you are smart enough to know all this but chose to proceed anyways. That is why your suit will fail and you will likely be sanctioned.

And that's the bottom line because Stone Cold said so.

Stone Cold Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

dhall said...

Dr. Harr included himself as a plaintiff solely to work around his injunction from filing pleadings in Durham County Superior Court on behalf of Crystal Mangum. he was never mentioned in the article in question.
I couldn't find the video of the news broadcast by ABC-11 (I did find a short video with ABC-11 reporter Sean Coffee), but I doubt he was mentioned on air, either.
Of course, his only response is "I will address it", without ever actually addressing it -- because he can't.

Anonymous said...

Next time, google "fair reporting privilege" before you waste the court's time with these lolsuits.

Doggie Howser said...

Good luck with that, Sid.

Anonymous said...

Hand Sid down his walkin' cane
Hand him down his cat
Hurry now and don't be late
'Cause he ain't got time to chat
Sid and CGM goin' out
To file the latest lolsuit
Guaranteed to blow defendants minds
Cause he thinks his legal knowledge is absolute
Hey, y'all prepare yourself
For the legal law firm man
You ain’t never read a suit like the legal law firm man’s
His defendants bound to lose control
When they get the lolsuit from the legal law firm man

Doggie Howser said...

Sid:

Has there been any media.coverage of your lawsuit?

Anonymous said...

"Newsworthiness is subjective with regards to Crystal Mangum... Stories about the Duke Lacrosse case are newsworthy, but those about the death of her boyfriend Reginald Daye are not!"
CGM's trial for the murder of Daye was pretty well covered in 2013.
Other news agencies including blackamericaweb carried articles about Daye's death. ABC11 even published an article regarding his funeral.

The most recent article about Daye (from the cinemaholic) was from 2024.

You'd find them yourself if you weren't too busy making up stories for your "lawsuit, blogs, Substack, letters, appointments with individuals..."

As you were.

DHall said...

For anyone following along, there is an eportal available to check civil lawsuits in North Carolina. The link is https://portal-nc.tylertech.cloud/Portal/ .
You can search by case number, but the format is different than what Dr. Harr has identified on the blog. The searchable case number is 26CV008197-310.