Click on the link below to view the flog and the directory.
They both have links to each other.
LINK to Flog: http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog25/flog25.html
LINK to Directory: http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog25/flog25direc.html
Transcript of the flog is below
Word
count: 1,125
At the October 24, 2012 meeting of the North Carolina State
Bar’s Authorized Practices Committee meeting held in Raleigh, a decision was made to file a civil
complaint against Harr enjoining him from assisting Crystal Mangum, the Duke
Lacrosse victim/accuser who is currently facing murder charges.
The impetus behind the legal action stemmed from two
documents Harr filed in Mangum’s case on August 7, 2012… one a petition for
writ of mandamus to have the Larceny of chose in action charge against her
dismissed, and the other to order her attorney, at the time, Woody Vann, to
turn over all discovery which he had been withholding to her.
Harr drafted and signed these documents as a third party Pro
Se petitioner and stated in the filings his arguments for having standing in
the case.
The motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction
against Harr was filed in the Wake County Courthouse in downtown Raleigh on December 4,
2012. In addition to mentioning the two
petitions filed in August, the State Bar plaintiff also mentioned the previous
incident addressed and resolved in the Bar’s July 17, 2012 meeting.
Also the Bar included in its complaint the August 13, 2012
letter Harr had written to Judge Orlando Hudson…
which it evidently considered to be the province of licensed attorneys. This transgression was never mentioned in the
Letter of Notice the Bar sent to Harr in late August.
Harr responded to the civil suit on December 17, 2012, in a
filing that denied that his petitions breached any law against lawyerly conduct
as he was solely representing himself.
He furthermore asserted that the motions he drafted and
filed for Crystal Mangum had been settled earlier and that he was within his
legal rights to send a letter to a judge advocating for position or cause.
In addition to defending against the State Bar’s allegation,
Harr filed two motions of his own… one to waive the general statutes that
prohibit him from legally representing Mangum in Court, and the other to have
oral arguments.
The reasons given for allowing him to represent Mangum were
that she could not find a defense attorney that would be willing to attack the state’s
deputy chief medical examiner, Dr. Clay Nichols, and willing to place Daye’s
death on Duke University Hospital.
Finally, Harr requested oral arguments to better express his
position to the presiding judge… something which was denied him in his
discrimination lawsuit against Duke
University in 2011. Like Duke University,
the Plaintiff State Bar has an exceedingly weak case against Harr and has no
likelihood of prevailing in open court.
To improve its odds and lessen its exposure to ridicule and
embarrassment, the State Bar, relying on Rule 12(c) in the state’s Civil
Procedures, filed on January 14, 2013, a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. This is a motion Harr believes to be rarely
used, and definitely one of desperation.
Such a motion, if granted, would dispense with oral
arguments in open court, which Harr had specifically requested in his initial
response… with the ruling being made behind closed doors of the judge’s chamber
based upon the pleadings filed alone. In
essence, it would once again deprive Harr of his day in court… this time as a
defendant.
Harr filed his response in the Wake County Courthouse two
weeks later… strenuously objecting and renewing his call for oral arguments in
open court.
Plaintiff State Bar had sought to schedule the hearing on
Monday, February 18, 2013… Presidents’ Day, a federal holiday. A clever move on the part of the Bar to
lessen the attention the event would receive otherwise.
On January 30, 2013, Harr received notice that the hearing
would take place in Courtroom 10-C, before the honorable Judge Carl R. Fox.
The following day, Harr researched the web for information
about the black-rober and learned the following about Carl R. Fox:
- he
graduated from UNC-CH with a B.A. degree;
- he
graduated from UNC- CH School
of Law with a law
degree;
- he
worked as a district attorney in Orange County
from 1984 until 2005; and
- he has
since been an Orange County Superior Court judge in Chapel
Hill.
The significance of the above is that for more than forty
years, the North Carolina Medical Examiner’s office has been at UNC-CH… moving
in mid-January 2013 to its new facility in Raleigh.
Therefore, throughout his more than two decades-long career
as a prosecutor, Judge Fox had a close relationship with the Orange County
medical examiner and its forensic team.
As a result, it can be assumed that he: (a) developed a
strong working relationship with those medical examiners; (b) might have
fostered friendships with those medical examiners; (c) could possibly
personally know Dr. Nichols and communicated with him; and (d) developed a fierce
loyalty with the Orange County medical examiners secondary to his professional
and collegiate ties with them and UNC-CH.
The conflict of interest clearly arises when one considers
that the basis of Harr’s advocacy on Mangum’s behalf is due to the fact that
her first degree murder charge is based on an autopsy report on Reginald Daye
by the state’s deputy chief medical examiner… Dr. Clay Nichols, the Orange County Medical
Examiner at UNC-CH.
The extensive fraudulence of the Nichols’ Autopsy
Examination Report is widely known by the mainstream media, the Durham prosecutors,
Mangum’s defense attorneys, Mangum’s defense expert witness forensic
pathologist Dr. Christena Roberts, the North Carolina State Bar, the North
Carolina Medical Board, politicians, civil rights leaders, and others.
Unfortunately there has been a concerted effort by all to
conceal the spurious nature of the autopsy report… so egregious and damaging
that it, alone, should be grounds for the dismissal of the murder charge Mangum
now faces.
On February 1, 2013, Harr filed a Motion for
Disqualification of Judge Carl R. Fox on the Claim of Partiality… for a
reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts would believe that Harr
could not receive an impartial ruling from Judge Fox.
North Carolina General Statutes and Canon 3(C)(1)(a) state
that the “due process clause imposes on the trial judge the duty of absolute
impartiality,” and provides that “upon the motion of any party, a judge should
disqualify him or herself in any proceeding in which his or her impartiality
may be reasonably questioned…”
Harr requested that the hearing to be heard by Honorable
Judge Paul C. Ridgeway, a Superior Court Wake County judge with no substantial ties to Orange and Durham
Counties.
The ball is now in Judge Carl R. Fox’s courtroom… the question
being, will the black-rober recuse himself or fight to preside over the
scheduled February 18th hearing.
Stay tuned. nn
