justice4nifong: Crystal Mangum, Sidney Harr, M.D. v. ABC-11/WTVD News: Defamation lawsuit

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 23, 2026
"ChatGPT's analysis of Crystal Mangum's trial transcript regarding Reginald Daye's cause of death: .. which unsurprisingly is in agreement with world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril H. Wecht."

ABOVE BUTTON: This Substack was 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!"

164 comments:

Doggie Howser said...: Any guesses as to how much jail time Sid servers when he is found in criminal contempt again?; July 26, 2026 at 6:26 AM
A Durham Man said...: Sid:

What is the basis of your claim against WTVD (not Crystal’s)? How have you been defamed?; July 26, 2026 at 9:46 AM
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.; July 26, 2026 at 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Is CGM aware of this lolsuit?; July 26, 2026 at 5:28 PM
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).; July 27, 2026 at 8:29 AM
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; July 27, 2026 at 1:30 PM
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!; July 30, 2026 at 6:40 AM
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.; July 30, 2026 at 9:55 AM
Nana D said...: Sidney: When will you respond to the critics and naysayers who are questioning your defamation suit?; July 30, 2026 at 5:26 PM
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.; August 2, 2026 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Why haven't you posted my comments, Sid?; August 3, 2026 at 5:32 AM
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.; August 3, 2026 at 1:17 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Durham Man.

I will address that issue if it arises.; August 3, 2026 at 1:21 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

If that issue arises, I will address it.; August 3, 2026 at 1:22 PM
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.; August 3, 2026 at 1:26 PM
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?; August 3, 2026 at 1:40 PM
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.; August 3, 2026 at 1:46 PM
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?; August 3, 2026 at 1:52 PM
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.; August 3, 2026 at 2:02 PM
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.; August 3, 2026 at 2:05 PM
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.; August 3, 2026 at 2:12 PM
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.; August 3, 2026 at 4:04 PM
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.; August 3, 2026 at 4:04 PM
dhall said...: I doubt that it will get that far, so I’m not surprised you won’t answer.; August 3, 2026 at 8:12 PM
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.; August 3, 2026 at 8:34 PM
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.; August 4, 2026 at 5:02 AM
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.; August 4, 2026 at 5:28 AM
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; August 4, 2026 at 6:41 AM
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.; August 4, 2026 at 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Next time, google "fair reporting privilege" before you waste the court's time with these lolsuits.; August 4, 2026 at 8:32 AM
Doggie Howser said...: Good luck with that, Sid.; August 6, 2026 at 8:32 PM
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; August 8, 2026 at 8:16 AM
Doggie Howser said...: Sid:

Has there been any media.coverage of your lawsuit?; August 8, 2026 at 9:15 AM
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.; August 8, 2026 at 12:44 PM
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.; August 12, 2026 at 8:41 AM
DHall said...: On Aug 2nd, Anonymous brought up 2 issues you have never addressed. In order to show ABC-11 committed defamation, you must prove that :

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.

Nowhere in the “lolsuit” do you even make these claims, let alone prove them. To make this clear, those are the 2 key questions that must be answered in order to prove that defamation was committed against a “public figure” — they’re the key components to proving actual malice.

I doubt you’ll respond, but I want this out here as a conversation piece to revisit when this attempt to “collaterally attack the verdict in the criminal case” (thanks, Stone Cold Abe) ultimately fails.; August 15, 2026 at 5:39 AM
Anonymous said...: And, of course, despite all his lawsuits - Sid sued an entity that does not legally exist, and served the wrong individual. Sid will scream technicalities and the rules shouldn't apply to him, but he again shows he refuses to learn and these lawsuits aren't serious - they are attempts to manipulate Crystal into thinking he's helping her. If they were serious, he'd at least get the basics like the parties and the service correct.; August 17, 2026 at 4:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

Regarding the Wake County injunctive court order, I am not sure it applies to courts in other counties. Not being a lawyer, I do not know for sure.

True, I was not mentioned in ABC-11's publications, but I believe grounds for standing can be argued successfully. I will present my arguments at the appropriate time.; August 18, 2026 at 11:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

There's a requisite for fair reporting privilege protection... the reporting must be accurate! My contention is the statement "stabbing death" is inaccurate. Keep in mind I allowed ABC-11 more than three months' warning before a lawsuit was filed.; August 18, 2026 at 11:33 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Is that a poem, or lyrics to a song melody?

Regardless, when the smoke clears, you will need to add a few more lines.; August 18, 2026 at 11:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Doggie Howser.

I am unaware of any coverage despite providing notice of it to numerous media outlets. I am not surprised as most media want to suppress stories about Ms. Mangum's murder case because they are aware of her innocence.; August 18, 2026 at 11:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I believe that you probably have not read Ms. Mangum's ten-day trial transcript. I have. So has ChatGPT. Please check out the "World v. Crystal Mangum" Substack scheduled for posting on Sunday, August 23, 2026 which will be accessible on this blog site. That Substack will answer many of your queries.; August 18, 2026 at 11:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, DHall.

I believe I can show ABC-11 News cannot prove, or provide proof, Mr. Daye died as a result of the stabbing... or an infection from the wound as was testified at trial.

It is important that you view the "World v. Crystal Mangum" substack which will be posted on Sunday, August 23rd.; August 18, 2026 at 11:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

I will be out of town for a week... ergo, out of commission regarding this blog site, so until about Wednesday, August 26th, comments will not be posted until after I return on the 25th or 26th. The next all-important Substack, however, is scheduled to post automatically on Sunday, the 23rd.

Thought I would provide advance notice so that many compassionate commenters will not worry about me... (of course I appreciate your concern).

As you were.; August 18, 2026 at 12:04 PM
DHall said...: Your good friend, ChatGTP, tells me that if an individual is not a licensed attorney and is under a court injunctive order for the unauthorized practice of law, they cannot legally file a lawsuit representing someone else in another North Carolina county.

There is nothing in the article referring to you. There is nothing in that article that people that know you can read and connect the article to you.
You can’t show that you suffered or will imminently suffer a real, concrete, and particularized harm to a protected legal right or interest.
You can’t show a direct link to an injury you’ve suffered that is fairly traceable to the ABC-11 article or news story.
Since you can’t prove ABC-11 harmed you, you can’t prove that a favorable court ruling or legal remedy can fix, relieve, or compensate for the harm you suffered.

You literally have no “grounds for standing”.; August 18, 2026 at 6:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Google “AI hallucination law” before you put all your trust in ChatGPT.; August 19, 2026 at 4:58 AM
Anonymous said...: I didn’t post any queries. I simply provided examples to contradict your claim regarding stories about Daye’s death. I’ll not you probably have not read them.; August 19, 2026 at 5:03 AM
Anonymous said...: The judgment of conviction in Mangum's criminal case is all the proof ABC-11 needs. There is no way around it. And you don't get to relitigate the verdict in the criminal case in your civil lolsuit. That is why your suit is frivolous and malicious and why you should brace yourself for sanctions.

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

Stone Cold Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; August 19, 2026 at 7:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid ... if your new substack says that the trial transcript shows that the cause of death was in line with Cyril Wecht, then why do you keep saying that information was not presented to the jury? They clearly had it, and knew he died from malpractice, not the stab wound, but due to North Carolina's laws on proximate cause, malpractice is not an independent intervening event (despite what Wecht says), so they convicted anyway.

But, you keep claiming this information was never presented to the jury, now you are sharing a post saying it was.; August 20, 2026 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid, you obviously don’t know how ChatGPT works, which is why you should never trust it for medical OR legal advice.

ChatGPT is an AI language model - fundamentally, all it’s trying to do is produce a “reasonable continuation” of whatever text it’s got so far. It’s trying to give you the answer you’re looking for based on the text you’ve provided- not necessarily the correct answer.

I’m not stating it ChatGTP doesn’t have its place, but from a legal perspective, its use should be limited to only the following:
Summarizing legal documents or public contracts you already own

Explaining legal definitions in plain English.

Brainstorming general questions to ask a real human lawyer.

Speaking of, why don’t you run your recent lolsuit through it and tell us the results.; August 23, 2026 at 12:51 PM
DHall said...: Today Dr. Harr voluntarily removed himself as a plaintiff in this case. My guess is the he does not believe that “grounds for standing can be argued successfully”.
I’ll continue to monitor the lawsuit. It will be interesting to see what motions Crystal Mangum files.; August 26, 2026 at 2:52 PM
DHall said...: I’d posted this as a reply to earlier comments, but they tend to be overlooked. Today Dr. Harr voluntarily removed himself as a plaintiff in this lawsuit.; August 26, 2026 at 2:54 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Ever hear the phrase, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained"?; August 26, 2026 at 5:00 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

As ChatGPT stated, the words "esophageal intubation" were never mentioned during trial by the prosecutor, the defense attorney, or any witness. Fact is that Mangum's attorney did not use a superseding intervening causation defense. Additionally, during their closing arguments, attorneys on both sides stated that Mr. Daye died secondary to complications from an infection from the stab wound. The trial transcripts don't lie.; August 26, 2026 at 5:13 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

ChatGPT read the trial transcript and was able to assess what was presented to the jurors during trial, and to acknowledge what was said in closing arguments, etc.

I would like to get ChatGPT to review my lawsuit.; August 26, 2026 at 5:18 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, DHall.

You're very fast! You posted about three hours after I filed. Tell me what you think about voluntarily dismissing myself as a co-plaintiff. Did it help or hurt? Was it a good move or bad? In addition to notifying other blog viewers, I am sure they would like to hear your opinion on my action.; August 26, 2026 at 5:24 PM
DHall said...: Was it a good move? Well, assuming it gets that far, you saved ABC-11 and their lawyers from having to draft a motion to have you dismissed.

It means you no longer have to prove you have any kind of legal standing in this matter (an argument you were going to lose), so I would say it was a good move from standpoint as well.
This also means you can no longer write or file any motions regarding this lawsuit, as that puts you in violation of the injunctive order for the unauthorized practice of law. That’s a good move on your part. At least you won’t be going to jail again.
Will it help or hurt? Neither, quite frankly. The lawsuit will eventually be dismissed. See post from Anonymous @August 2, 2026 at 11:53 AM; August 26, 2026 at 8:10 PM
Anonymous said...: If ChatGPT “read” the trial transcript, why can’t it read your lolsuit? Glad to see you identify it as “yours”. You should hope no one from the Durham County Court reads this blog.; August 26, 2026 at 8:53 PM
Doggie Howser said...: Sid,

With or without you as a party, the lawsuit is a bad joke. Given the pattern of behavior that you have established with your past litigation, I predict that the judge who is assigned the case will let you know that it is time for you to end your career as a lay advocate.; August 27, 2026 at 6:58 PM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Are you the Doogie Howser, M.D. who posted here for many years?; August 30, 2026 at 5:46 PM
DHall said...: ABC-11 has filed their response. As one anonymous has already reported, the lawsuit parties and the services were incorrect, and If you read through the reasons given for dismissal, it reads like they summarized the comments on this blog.

Unfortunately for Mangum, ABC-11 is also calling for attorney's fees as sanctions against Mangum for violating Rule 11 of the
North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as taxing the cost of the lawsuit (i.e. filing fees, service of process, and other necessary expenses) to her.
You should be ashamed of dragging Crystal Mangum into this mess, Dr. Harr.; August 31, 2026 at 1:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Wow….Did you share the June 5 letter/ email (from WTVD’s lawfirm) with CGM, Sid?

You got took to school.
The best thing CGM can do at this point is to tell the court that this lolsuit was filed without her knowledge or consent.; August 31, 2026 at 4:29 PM
Anonymous said...: You want some reading entertainment, don’t bother with Sid’s Substack. Go read the “findings of fact” document from his contempt case that put him in jail for a month.; August 31, 2026 at 4:49 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

What letter/e-mail are you talking about. I never received a letter from ABC-11 News and/or its attorneys. If you have a copy could you provide a link to it? Thanks.; August 31, 2026 at 6:22 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, DHall.

I have not seen a copy of the Response from ABC-11 News. Could you send me a link to it? Thanks.; August 31, 2026 at 6:25 PM
Anonymous said...: It was emailed to justice4nifong@gmail.com, and was physically mailed to the addresses you have listed in the summons (that is, the PO Box and the St. Mary’s Street apartment address). Check your email and your snail mail.
You can’t claim you never received them just because you never read them.; August 31, 2026 at 7:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Not DHall, but he posted the link weeks ago:

DHallAugust 12, 2026 at 8:41 AM
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.; August 31, 2026 at 7:07 PM
DHall said...: The documents for the lawsuit can be seen from the NC Judicial branch portal at https://portal-nc.tylertech.cloud/Portal/
Once you’ve on the portal, select the “smart search”option. Once you open “smart search” (you’ll have to go through one of those “prove you’re human” things), enter the case number in the search criteria.
Once you get into the case, you’ll see a section called “case events”. All of the recorded events are listed, with a link to the pdf for that event.
If you still can’t find the documents, I guess you’ll have to wait until a copy is mailed to you.; September 1, 2026 at 3:51 AM
DHall said...: I would also note that a copy of WTVD’s response (a motion to dismiss, BTW) was mailed to an address other than Dr. Harr’s PO Box or apartment address - it looks like the law firm representing WTVD has Crystal Mangum’s actual address as well.
My assumption is that they found that the addresses originally provided both belonged to Dr. Harr.; September 1, 2026 at 4:14 AM
DHall said...: Before Dr. Harr complains about WTVD's motion, it is allowed per North Carolina rules of civil procedure Rule 12(b):
Official Text of Rule 12(b):
How Presented. - Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion:

1) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
2) Lack of jurisdiction over the person
3) Improper venue or division
4) Insufficiency of process
5)Insufficiency of service of process
6) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
7) Failure to join a necessary party.

I can't speak to #2, but this "lolsuit" and summons was served on Mr. Rob Elmore, who is not the registered agent for WTVD Television.
Therefore, the service of a summons fails to meet statutory or procedural requirements.
I'm sure Dr. Harr will file this under "legalese mumbo-jumbo", just like he does for every other rule of law when it does not suit him.; September 1, 2026 at 10:32 AM
DHall said...: I would also note that even if Crystal Mangum moves to dismiss this lawsuit, she could still be held accountable for fees and sanctions for violating North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11.

Great job, Dr. Harr.; September 1, 2026 at 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr asked:

I have not seen a copy of the Response from ABC-11 News. Could you send me a link to it? Thanks.

DHall had already provided a link to filings in this case on August 12 at 8:41 AM.

https://portal-nc.tylertech.cloud/Portal/

The case number is:

26CV008197-310

Dr. Harr asked:

What letter/e-mail are you talking about. I never received a letter from ABC-11 News and/or its attorneys. If you have a copy could you provide a link to it? Thanks.

The letter was included as an exhibit in ABC-11’s answer. It was emailed to you on June 5 at justice4nifong@gmail.com. In the letter, the attorney notes that your advocacy violates the ban on the unlicensed practice of law, discusses why your defamation claim is not supported by the law and strongly urges you and Ms. Mangum refrain from filing a lawsuit. He warns that a lawsuit, even if withdrawn or dismissed, can result in liability for legal fees and other sanctions.

Dr. Harr asked:

Ever hear the phrase, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained”?

I suggest that you warn Ms. Mangum that you and she may be facing a potential requirement to pay thousands of dollars in ABC-11’s legal fees and expenses as a result of this lawsuit.

It appears that you are going to learn that filing frivolous lawsuits can be an expensive hobby.; September 1, 2026 at 7:01 PM
Anonymous said...: What? No response, Sid? Surely you can tell us why dhall and Anonymous @ August 31, 2026 at 7:03 PM are both wrong.; September 1, 2026 at 8:23 PM
Anonymous said...: My favorite conclusion in the Findings of Fact:

Defendant has no respect or the rule of law when it does not suit him or allow him to do whatever he wants to do.; September 2, 2026 at 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Well Sid? Surely with the instructions dhall provided, you have read WTVD's motion to dismiss.

Surely you have a STRONG argument why the motion shouldn't be granted you want to share with us. Who else you going to share it with? It's not like you can write CGM's response for her, since you've voluntarily removed yourself from the lolsuit.

How about you explain what changed in the month between filing the lolsuit and then voluntarily removing yourself. You asked dhall's opinion, but never actually provided a reason. After all, you "believe grounds for standing can be argued successfully"....; September 3, 2026 at 5:43 AM
DHall said...: Dr. Harr -- Were you able to access the documents from the link I provided?; September 3, 2026 at 6:39 AM
DHall said...: Testing. I tried to post a comment earlier and the blog hung after selecting “Publish”…; September 4, 2026 at 2:21 PM
DHall said...: It.look like every one has asked the questions that apparently failed to post for me, I await your response to the comments from September 1, 2026 at 7:01 PM oneward.; September 5, 2026 at 8:06 PM
Doggie Howser said...: Sid:

Why don’t you ask your friend James Coleman to review your lawsuit. I think you could trust him to provide you an accurate assessment.; September 6, 2026 at 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid:

Have you heard from kenhyderal? Has he contacted his dear friend Crystal after she was released from prison?; September 6, 2026 at 5:21 PM
Anonymous said...: From what I can see from Sid's lolsuit, he mailed letters to Rob Elmore and "ABC News headquarters Legal Counsel" regarding the so-called "Media disinformation about Reginald Daye's stabbing death". He used these letters in his lolsuit as exhibits, claiming he received "no response".
We know from the motion to dismiss that the Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych law firm emailed (justice4nifong@gmail.com) and wrote to him at the addresses provided (that is, his PO Box and his apartment address) on 5 June, months prior to the complaint being filed.

So, we know there was an actual response prior to the filing of the defamation lolsuit.

I can only come to 1 conclusion -- Sid ignored the letter from the law firm.
Why? It didn't come from Rob Elmore or "ABC News headquarters Legal Counsel".

I don't know how this works in NC -- does the court make a ruling on the defendant's motion before anything else is needed? Does CGM get to respond to the motion to dismiss before the court makes its decision?; September 9, 2026 at 12:37 PM
Anonymous said...: No movement on the lolsuit since the 8/31 motion to dismiss; September 10, 2026 at 6:48 AM
Anonymous said...: I guess Sid, like Kenhyderal, has gone into hiding. If Sid ever bothers to approve the comments, my plan is to start a blog (I’ll call it something catchy, like
“legalese_mumbojumbo”) to keep everyone updated on the current or any future Harr/Mangum lolsuits.; September 10, 2026 at 7:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid says:
Ever hear the phrase, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained"?

I say Ever hear the acronym FAFO?; September 10, 2026 at 7:29 PM
Doggie Howser said...: Sid:

It’s time for you to come clean and share with us your strategy for responding to the motion to dismiss. Or, at least admit that you have no basis for a response and that your lawsuit will be dismissed. Which is it?; September 11, 2026 at 3:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, it looks like Sid isn’t dead, as he approved (finally) some comments,
apparently he’s too busy (doing what? ) to respond.

Since it’s taking you so long to simply approve comments, you should just go ahead and remove your filter on the blog.; September 13, 2026 at 4:58 AM
kenhyderal said...: Hello boys and girls. I am happy to be back. What have I missed?; September 13, 2026 at 7:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous
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.
August 3, 2026 at 4:04 PM

If BBC and Christian Science Monitor have referenced Mr. Daye's demise as a "stabbing death," then they are defaming Ms. Mangum per se as well as ABC-11 News. Clearly, Mangum cannot sue everyone.; September 13, 2026 at 1:18 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous
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.
August 3, 2026 at 8:34 PM

Defendant's assertion that Plaintiff's reputation was already damaged does not establish that Defendant's publication was true... ergo, this defense does not protect ABC-11 News defendant from defamation liability.; September 13, 2026 at 1:28 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, DHall.
Only time will tell the outcome of Mangum's defamation lawsuit.; September 13, 2026 at 1:32 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Doggie Howser.

All I hope is that the judge assigned to the case is unbiased and impartial... seeking justice instead of retribution.; September 13, 2026 at 1:36 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, DHall. Thank you for the link. Having access to the docket is invaluable.; September 13, 2026 at 1:38 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

The contempt of court case served its purpose of preventing me from being available to testify at the Motions Hearing in Ms. Mangum's Petition for Judicial Review. That was nothing more than a malicious conspiracy betwix two judges.; September 13, 2026 at 1:43 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, DHall.

I appreciate your comments and Crystal will consider addressing them in her reply.; September 13, 2026 at 1:48 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, DHall.

I believe the court will realize the merits in Mangum's case and recognize it is not frivolous... ergo, I do not believe sanctions will be issued.; September 13, 2026 at 1:50 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Mangum's lawsuit is not frivolous, so it is highly unlikely that sanctions will be issued.; September 13, 2026 at 1:54 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Doggie Howser.

Mangum's strategy to respond to the motion to dismiss is to counter it. You will see her document prior to the statute of limitation expires.; September 13, 2026 at 1:59 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

During the past sixty days I have made two trips to the west coast... one to attend my sixtieth high school reunion, and the other to spend time with a hospitalized relative. Much time has been spent traveling and away from home. As I stated before, I will post comments as soon as I find them, but it may take a while for me to have time to respond.; September 13, 2026 at 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Will it be her response, yours, or ChatGPT’s?; September 13, 2026 at 3:37 PM
Anonymous said...: You never responded to comments regarding the letter emailed and sent to you. Is your argument still that you never received it? Since it was sent to only your addresses, CGM could certainly state she never received them, but you? A simple subpoena or court order to google can confirm that you received it - Google can even tell the court that you opened the email and for how long, as a way to determine if you read it. It can also tell the court if you deleted it without ever opening it.
Ask your buddy ChatGPT…..; September 13, 2026 at 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid - “Libel-proof” literally means that a person’s reputation is already so damaged or tarnished that a false statement cannot hurt them any more. Ergo, It DOES protect WTVD from defamation liability.; September 13, 2026 at 4:04 PM
Doggie Howser said...: Sid:

What statute of limitations are you referring to? You really are clueless.; September 13, 2026 at 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...: How exciting. The little man has returned.; September 13, 2026 at 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: The letter from the law firm notes it was e-mailed only, not mailed, they just listed the addresses - however Sid still needs to check his e-mail.; September 15, 2026 at 5:42 AM
Anonymous said...: This is how I understand the civil case process and timelines:
Defendant served with a complaint — Clock starts and defendant has 30 days to answer or move to dismiss.

Defendant files a motion to dismiss — Clock stops.

Court rules on the motion — Clock starts and plaintiff has 20 days for responsive pleading.

Is there someone out there that can confirm?
It could take quite some time before there's a resolution to this lolsuit, as the court doesn't have a "deadline" to rule on the motion to dismiss.; September 15, 2026 at 9:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid: Where are you?; September 18, 2026 at 5:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid, It’s time to wake up and release the comments.; September 19, 2026 at 6:27 AM
Doggie Howser said...: Sid:

Has J4N endorsed Roy Cooper?; September 19, 2026 at 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Yo Sid, release the comments.; September 20, 2026 at 5:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: So...? What's your point?; September 21, 2026 at 5:23 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Could you be more specific? Both wrong about what?; September 21, 2026 at 5:26 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Hold your stallions. My priorities do not lead with moderating comments.; September 21, 2026 at 5:28 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Doggie Howser.

I, personally, endorse Roy Cooper for Senate. j4n is a committee made up of close to fifty members who have their own individual opinions. Besides, j4n is not politically involved, as an organization.; September 21, 2026 at 5:31 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I am here, but am extremely busy. I encourage you to make a comment or ask a question of substance.; September 21, 2026 at 5:33 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

It is my understanding that after a defendant files a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff has thirty (30) days by which to file a Reply... and during the interim, the judge does not issue a ruling on the motion.; September 21, 2026 at 5:40 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

It is my understanding, as was mentioned by another commenter, that only an e-mail of the June 5, 2026 letter was sent... Hardcopies were never sent. As happens on occasion, I overlook an e-mail inadvertently. That is what happened here. Since I received not reply from my March and April letters, after my May 19, 2026 when there was no response immediately forthcoming, I was not expecting one and was not looking for a response. Had I opened the June 5th e-mail, I would have responded to the law firm in hopes of meeting with it or the defendant. I would have only filed a lawsuit in that situation is if there was no resolution as the one-year statute of limitations approached.

Hope you are satisfactorily enlightened.; September 21, 2026 at 5:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Doggie Howser.

I value what compromised friendship I have with Professor Coleman, ergo, I would not want him to become engaged in the Mangum/Duke imbroglio and put his livelihood and position at risk. Comprende?; September 21, 2026 at 5:52 AM
Doggie Howser said...: Sid:

Why is your friendship with James Coleman “compromised?”; September 21, 2026 at 9:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Your just admitted to an "inadvertent" action of not opening an email you received containing communication with you about the article/broadcast.
Congratulations, you just invalidated your own "fact", #13 on your lolsuit.

Nice work, Sid.; September 21, 2026 at 1:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harron September 13, 2026 at 1:48 PM:
I appreciate your comments and Crystal will consider addressing them in her reply.

I don't think it's a matter of her "considering" to address the issue of your lolsuit's Insufficiency of service of process.

The Name and address of the defendant are both incorrect on the summons.

If I filed a lawsuit against Shan Carter, put your name and address on the summons, and subsequently had you served with the summons, would it be proper for Shan Carter to file for dismissal under 12(b4),(b5)?
If he did, should the lawsuit be dismissed?; September 21, 2026 at 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: CGM has yet to respond to the defendant's motion to dismiss in the "Sidney B Harr VS ABC-11/WTVD News" (as it is currently named) lolsuit. CGM has roughly 1 more week to respond.; September 23, 2026 at 9:45 AM
Prince Humperdinck said...: Sid states j4n is a committee made up of close to fifty members . It is not -- the "J4N" committee as it once existed is no more. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-committee.
Doubtlessly, Sid will claim that the committee is simply pining for the fjords.

It's true, it's d@mn true!; September 23, 2026 at 10:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Don't worry. I'm sure she'll make the deadline.; September 24, 2026 at 9:06 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Doggie Howser.

Maybe my intent was to express that I didn't want to compromise his employment with Duke University School of Law by seeking his assistance with Ms. Mangum's legal cases.; September 24, 2026 at 9:09 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

It is my belief that Ms. Mangum will answer those issues in her reply. I am sure her reply will be filed in the near future.; September 24, 2026 at 9:12 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Prince Humperdinck commented on "Crystal Mangum, Sidney Harr, M.D. v. ABC-11/WTVD News: Defamation lawsuit"
23 hours ago
Sid states j4n is a committee made up of close to fifty members . It is not -- the "J4N" committee as it once existed is no more. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-committee.
Doubtlessly, Sid will claim that the committee is simply pining for the fjords.

It's true, it's d@mn true!
In Response to a comment by Doggie Howser

Hey, Prince Humperdinck,

The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong is alive, well, and growing. A new member was recently added within the past two weeks.

Also, could you explain what "pining for the fjords" means?; September 24, 2026 at 9:18 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't presume to speak for Prince Humperdinck, but I believe it means that J4N has run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. It is an ex-committee.

Sone Cold Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; September 24, 2026 at 12:50 PM
Prince Humperdinck said...: Sid, It’s from a Monty Python skit (google “Dead Parrot Sketch”). A customer returns a dead parrot to a pet store and the salesman uses this to claim why the parrot isn’t dead.
Why are you a team of 1 when the J4N gang is growing? Why aren’t they posting on this, their own, “committee” blog?

It's true, it's d@mn true!; September 24, 2026 at 2:55 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

Thanks for the explanation. For the record, I'm not a Monty Python aficionado.

With regards to j4n, I am, for all intents and purposes, a team of one when it comes to advocacy. Committee members, like all others, are allowed to comment on this blog site, but the retention of membership certainly does not require it.; September 25, 2026 at 5:13 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Abe Froman.

j4n Committee membership is still open for anyone interested in social justice to join. To be honestly truthful, I have not devoted much time in an effort to swell the ranks of membership.; September 25, 2026 at 5:18 AM
Anonymous said...: j4n Committee membership is still open for anyone interested in social justice to join.

What social justice issues are the J4N committee members currently working on?
When/where is the next meeting?
Inquiring minds want to know.; September 25, 2026 at 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...: She doesn't have to respond - this isn't Federal Court - you need to get it set for a hearing and have it be argued.; September 25, 2026 at 11:12 AM
Anonymous said...: CGM posted her response. the good news is that it reads like something Sid didn't write. The bad news is that it reads like ChatGTP wrote it.

This lolsuit is going to be dismissed, Sid's going to cry about it, yada yada yada yada.
As Stone Cold Abe pointed out, neither Sid, CGM, or ChatGTP can use this defamation lolsuit to collaterally attack the verdict in the criminal case.; September 25, 2026 at 1:40 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

ChatGPT? Nice guess. Assuming that ChatGPT wrote Ms. Mangum's Reply, why is that "bad news"? Please explain.

Also, if artificial intelligence is responsible for writing Ms. Mangum's Reply, then that eliminates any liability for Harr regarding unauthorized practice of law... Right?; September 28, 2026 at 4:53 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

The Committee is currently working on the exoneration of Crystal Mangum. The case on deck involves the two death penalties against Shan Carter.

No meeting is scheduled. A committee's existence is not reliant upon having meetings. Am I not correct?; September 28, 2026 at 4:58 AM
Anonymous said...: This is not legal advice and should not be interpreted as such. .
I explained why using ChatGPT (or any current AI for that matter) is not a good idea in my post dated August 23, 2026 at 12:51 PM.

You wrote the original complaint. Writing a civil complaint for another person generally constitutes the unauthorized practice of law if you are not a licensed attorney. Asking to be removed from the complaint doesn’t remove the fact that you wrote it.

If CGM felt she had a legitimate complaint, she should’ve consulted a lawyer.; September 28, 2026 at 4:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh - and your AI chats are not protected by client/attorney privilege. So (if it gets to that point) they can be used against you - and if ChatGPT was used by YOU instead of CGM? Boom…UPL.; September 28, 2026 at 4:31 PM
Anonymous said...: You are (poorly) working “on the exoneration of Crystal Mangum” (team of one and all that). Name one committee member other than Crystal Mangum working on this project? Name a member working on your Shan Carter project.
The J4N committee has ceased to be. It is an ex-committee.; September 29, 2026 at 5:48 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I suppose it's possible to consider A-I an attorney, but I am not its client... Crystal Mangum is. Is that not true? Besides, I am unaware of any legislation involving A-I and its use in legal actions.; September 30, 2026 at 4:07 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

First of all, Ms. Mangum and myself have been trying unsuccessfully, since she was abandoned by the NC Prisoner Legal Services on January 17, 2017, to retain an attorney. Fact is, she's been blacklisted by attorneys in the private sector and the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission has violated law by refusing to inquire into her case.

What A-I is capable of doing is the preparation of legal documents. If someone is unable to obtain legal counsel, is this not the next best thing?

Also, keep in mind that A-I most likely drafted Ms. Mangum's reply, and to my knowledge there is no law preventing pro se litigants from getting assistance from A-I.; September 30, 2026 at 4:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous
You are (poorly) working “on the exoneration of Crystal Mangum” (team of one and all that). Name one committee member other than Crystal Mangum working on this project? Name a member working on your Shan Carter project.
The J4N committee has ceased to be. It is an ex-committee.
September 29, 2026 at 5:48 PM

Hey, Anony.

My position in the j4n Committee is Lay Advocate... and as such, it is my mandate to address these issues. The fact is that the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong is alive and well, and our most recent member was inducted within the past month... and another potential member is in the process of applying. (P.S., don't tell my potential members that the Committee does not exist!! Hah.); September 30, 2026 at 4:27 AM
Anonymous said...: “I suppose it's possible to consider A-I an attorney…”.
No, it’s not. That was the purpose of my post.
“ but I am not its client... Crystal Mangum is. Is that not true?”
No, it’s not. AI chat bots are software services covered by privacy policies that allow them to capture your input and share it with a 3rd party. If it’s YOUR input, then YOU are using AI to create a legal document for someone else. That makes it UPL.
“Besides, I am unaware of any legislation involving A-I and its use in legal actions.”
There’s legislation and there’s the concept of “Legal Precedent” (past court decision that serves as an authority or guide for deciding subsequent cases with similar facts or legal issues). You ignore both at your own risk.; September 30, 2026 at 5:02 AM
Anonymous said...: No one maintains the website, no other committee member posts on the blog created for J4N, and no other member addresses any issues specific to "social justice" as a member of J4N.

Sounds like an ex-committee.; September 30, 2026 at 6:51 AM
Anonymous said...: This is not legal advice and should not be interpreted as such.

There is AI specifically designed for legal professionals (ChatGTP is NOT one of these software options). This AI requires you to purchase it, and it is used primarily for increasing productivity for common repetitive tasks like document review, legal research, contract analysis, and legal brief drafting (that is, it assists in drafting a legal brief -- the final version of the brief submitted to the court is the work of the lawyer, not AI).

The use of AI in legal settings is outlined in the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility Formal Opinion 512

In North Carolina, the use if AI in legal settings is laid out in NC FEO 2024-1.; September 30, 2026 at 7:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Why does Sid (and now Sid pretending to be Crystal/AI) keep asking for an Amended Complaint to remove Sid as a Plaintiff? All he has to do is file a voluntary dismissal as to his claims and he is out. You don't need permission of the Court or anything else.; September 30, 2026 at 7:21 AM
Anonymous said...: No lawyer will take up her claim of innocence in her second-degree murder conviction.
Any lawyer WOULD pick up her civil claim for defamation, providing she/you are not using the civil claim to collaterally attack her murder conviction (which she/you are).
It's that simple. If she has a valid claim and is willing to pay for her representation, a lawyer WILL take her as a client.
If a lawyer(s) refused to take this defamation case, you can guarantee it's because they know it's bogus -- not because of who she is.
Money talks and bullsh!t walks.; October 1, 2026 at 7:28 AM
Doggie Howser said...: Sid:

Who is the new member of J4N? Are you posting the new member’s picture at the J4N website?; October 1, 2026 at 4:43 PM
A Durham Man said...: Sid,

Speaking of J4N, now that Crystal has recanted her story about the lacrosse party, what is the position of J4N regarding the reinstatement of Mike Nifong’s law license?; October 2, 2026 at 5:17 AM
Doggie Howser said...: Sid: Where are you? Why are you not releasing comments?; October 3, 2026 at 5:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid: Why won’t you release the comments? Are you attending another reunion?; October 5, 2026 at 5:35 PM
DHall said...: I would like to see your response to A Durham Man's question as well. Do you still believe Mike Nifong "followed the principle of "equal justice for all," rather than the tenet of "selective justice based on Class and Color." in pursuing a case that Crystal Mangum stated was based on a made up story?; October 7, 2026 at 7:32 AM
A Durham Man said...: Sid,

Why won’t you answer my question?; October 7, 2026 at 5:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Mike Nifong was not a "martyr" for civil rights you claim him to be. Mike NIfong exploited African Americans to a point of not only making the Durham population of such look like complete and utter race hogs and morons. Yourself included, if not leading the pack.

Mike Nifong was not disbarred for "defending a black woman". Mike Nifong was disbarred for his gross misconduct, his vicious attacks on three college students, his disregard for the law he was sworn to uphold, and his selfish greed of wanting so desperately to win an election propped up by the black vote.

Mike Nifong acknowledged what he did to those families and the severity of what he did. He submitted his own resignation and agreed he should be disbarred. He eventually realized, though slowly, the severity of his disgusting actions. It's time you do too.

Justice for Mike Nifong means continued disbarment, and the inability to ever hurt families, be they white or black, rich or poor, ever again.; October 9, 2026 at 3:13 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

You make vague, unsubstantiated, and inflammatory statements about former Durham D.A. Mike Nifong, and without presenting any evidence, expect me to accept your allegations as fact?

Mike Nifong was disbarred for prosecuting three white Duke University student/lacrosse athletes on accusations made by a black coed in 2006. In my research, there are many North Carolina prosecutors who have done far worse than what Nifong is accused of doing (e.g., production of false evidence, coercion of confessions, pursuing baseless and vindictive prosecutions, and more).

Mike Nifong's disbarment and other punitive actions against him were for the purpose of setting an example for other D.A.s and prosecutors... and it's worked. Why else would D.A.s Stanback, Echols, and Satana Deberry refused to even speak with me?

I respectfully disagree with you regarding justice for which Mr. Nifong is deserving. It is apparent to me that justice would include, re-instatement of his Bar status, an offer of re-instatement for him to his position as the elected Durham district attorney, financial compensation, and more.; October 11, 2026 at 5:42 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, DHall.

I believe Mr. Nifong's law license should be reinstated because the North Carolina State Bar unjustly disbarred him. For example, could you explain, with specifics, as to the reason(s) for Mr. Nifong's disbarment?

Whether or not Ms. Mangum's accusations were true or false is irrelevant. Fact is that Mr. Nifong believed her accusations and acted properly in pursuing a prosecution.

Finally, with regards to the veracity of Ms. Mangum's so-called December 2024 "confession," I have never held it to be accurate in the first place.; October 11, 2026 at 5:54 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I try and release comments as soon as I receive them, and I answer them at my earliest convenience.

I am not scheduled to attend another reunion for quite some time, however, I have been extremely busy... as you will understand by the end of this coming week.; October 11, 2026 at 5:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Durham Man.

First and foremost, I have absolutely no confidence in Mangum's December 2024 so-called "recantation." In other words, I believe her confession is totally false. Likewise, by dragging the so-called "recantation" to the fore regarding Mike Nifong's disbarment, I see no nexus between her confession and the reinstatement of Mr. Nifong's law license.

Also, I speak on behalf of myself, and all j4n members are entitled to their own opinions and I do not prepend to speak for them. As an organization, j4n is officially neutral on political matters, unless otherwise noted.; October 11, 2026 at 6:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Mike Nifong acknowledged what he did to those families and the severity of what he did.
He submitted his own resignation and agreed he should be disbarred.

He publicly stated that he agreed “with the attorney general's statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty or Mr. Evans committed any of the crimes for which they were indicted.”

Those are not vague or unsubstantiated statements. Those are facts.

Your “whataboutism” fallacy is just that, a fallacy. Nifong’s wrongdoing does not suddenly become acceptable just because a more severe one exists. Two things can be bad at the same time.; October 11, 2026 at 6:12 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

My legal counsel ChatGPT felt it was necessary to seek the Court's approval in the case to dismiss me as a pro se party. Although I know more about Mangum's case than AI (or "Super-Intelligence" as mandated by the Republican dictator... note: "SI" not to be confused with Sports Illustrated).; October 11, 2026 at 6:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

What something "sounds like" does not necessarily equate with reality.; October 11, 2026 at 6:29 AM
A Durham Man said...: Sid:

You never held Crystal’s statement to be accurate? What is the basis for your belief? Was she lying when she admitted she falsely accused the lacrosse players?; October 11, 2026 at 8:55 AM
DHall said...: The reasons for Nifong’s disbarment are documented here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong

If that’s not acceptable, any of dozens more are a google search away.
To quote your good friend, law professor James Coleman, regarding Nifong’s actions, “It’s either total incompetence or it's misconduct on a scale that is extraordinary."
It appears your argument is either:
A totally incompetent DA should not be disbarred
or
A DA guilty of extraordinary misconduct shouldn’t be disbarred.

It’s a losing argument either way.

WRT Crystal Mangum, Have you spoken to her regarding her Dec 2024 interview? If not, why not? If so, what specific reasons did she provide that would lead you to believe her own statements are, in your words, “false”?; October 11, 2026 at 1:59 PM
Anonymous said...: My statements regarding Mike Nifong follow are drawn from the official findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Disciplinary Hearing Committee, as well as the Robert Mosteller (UNC School of Law) 2007 article in Fordham Law Review.

You make vague unsubstantiated statements about former Durham D.A. Mike Nifong, without presenting any evidence. I’ve cited my sources, what are yours?; October 11, 2026 at 8:57 PM
Anonymous said...: No action on Sidney B Harr VS ABC-11/WTVD News since the 9/25 Mangum response to plaintiff's motion to dismiss.; October 13, 2026 at 8:05 AM

Post a Comment

Saturday, July 25, 2026

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

164 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me