Friday, May 6, 2016

Sanctions against Sid Harr?

As many dear readers know, Sid Harr is a serial filer of frivolous lawsuits in several state courts and in the federal courts. One of his perpetually failed attempts is his litigation against Duke University. Sid has sued them three times. Now, the suits are known by their roman numerals. Harr I, Harr II and Harr III. All three allege the same facts and the same legal theories about Sid being trespassed off campus many years ago. I won't burden you with a recitation of the facts, as they are mostly non-sense. However, I will report that Sid has lost twice. (Harr I and Harr II) Now he has filed again. But, he was sanctioned in Harr II and that sanction was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court when they refused to hear Sid's appeal from his loss at the Fourth Circuit. Now Harr III has triggered the court to issue a show cause order. You can read the order  here.

Naturally, Sid is not one to take such an affront to his dignity lying down. No, he knows that when he's in a hole, he has two choices, stop digging, or dig deeper. In Sid's case, he always digs deeper. He's filed a motion to recuse  Judge Eagles and Magistrate Webster. Two people he impugned in Harr II. Sid's frivolous law suits are usually entertaining, and he and Duke do deserve each other. But, Judge Eagles and Magistrate Webster do not deserve the insults that Sid likes to hurl their way.

Walt-in-Durham

6 comments:

  1. ...and Harr's response to the Order to Show Cause is 21 pages long, even though the OSC allows him a maximum of 10 pages.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey, Dr. Caligari.

    Keep in mind that my filing contained three motions... and it did not represent my response to the Order to Show Cause, ergo your criticism is not relevant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of those three motions was a motion to rescind the Order to Show Cause, so it is indeed a response to the Order to Show Cause.

      Delete
    2. Sid has never been much of one to learn. He just shoots off at the lip.

      Delete
  3. Hey, Walt-in-Durham commenters.

    I thought I'd provide you with a link to the exhibits that accompanied the motions that I filed... my exhibits were on a disk that were filed with the brief. Here's a LINK to exhibits .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Walt,

    Have there been any filing since Sidney's motion to recuse? His brief is due in 13 days.

    John D. Smith
    New York, NY

    ReplyDelete