(NCSC, 306P18-2): Orders by the NC Supreme Court

306P18-2.Denial.of.Jeffrey.L.Miller.Motion.pdf
306P18-2.other.Orders.pdf

Direct links:


All files in the Supreme Court case: 306P18-2:
https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/search-results.php?sDocketSearch=306P18-2&exact=1


All files in the case COA case P19-308: https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/search-results.php?sDocketSearch=P19-308&exact=1

=========================

P19-308 (COA): MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RECORD ON APPEAL

COA.P19-308.Grodner.v.Grodner.Motion.for.Extention.of.Time.File.Record.pdf

Direct link:https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=255752

All files in the Supreme Court case: 306P18-2:
https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/search-results.php?sDocketSearch=306P18-2&exact=1

All files in the Court of Appeals case P19-308: https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/search-results.php?sDocketSearch=P19-308&exact=1


==========================================

No. P19-308                                     DISTRICT 3A

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

*************************************************

HUNTER F. GRODNER,                )

     (now Summerlin)              )

          Plaintiff-Appellee,      )

                                  )         From Pitt County

     vs.                          )           No. 13-CVD-398

                                  )           

ANDRZEJ GRODNER,                  )          

     (now Andrew Grodner)          )          

          Defendant-Appellant,     )          

___________________________________)

*************************************************

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

RECORD ON APPEAL

*************************************************

(Filed electronically 17 October 2019)

*****

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA:

     Defendant-Appellant Andrzej Grodner (currently Andrew Grodner), acting pro se, pursuant to North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure ("N.C.R.A.P.") Rules 2, 12(a) and 27(c), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time to file Record on Appeal fifteen (15) days after NC Supreme Court rules on related Petition and Motions in front of it related specifically to preparation of Record of Appeal. In support of this Motion the Defendant-Appellant shows the following:

SUPPORT IN FACT

1. On 7 March 2019 trial Court held a hearing on multiple motions filed by the parties, on 8 May 2019 trial Court entered an Order from said hearing, on 24 May 2019 Defendant-Appellant timely filed Notice of Appeal, on 28 June 2019 and on 12 July 2019 Defendant-Appellant was granted extensions to serve proposed record on appeal, and on 12 August 2019 Defendant-Appellant timely served proposed record on appeal on Jeffrey L. Miller, attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee.
2. On 3 September 2019 Jeffrey L. Miller filed the Plaintiff-Appellee's Objections to the Proposed Record on appeal and requested a Judicial Settlement of the record and on 17 September 2019 Judge Hardison presided over the hearing and ruled on Defendant-Appellant's Verified Amended Request for Continuance and on Jeffrey L. Miller's Objections. At the conclusion Judge Hardison requested that Jeffrey L. Miller prepare proposed Order within five (5) days and allowed Defendant-Appellant to respond to said proposed Order within five (5) days.
3. On 20 September 2019 Defendant filed with this Court a Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Response to Proposed Order for Settlement of Record on Appeal because he could not submit it to Judge Hardison within the allotted amount of time. Defendant argued that he needed a transcript to fully respond to Proposed Order because he is non-native English speaker, non-lawyer, and has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) which has been recognized by this court as a valid reason to grant him additional accommodations regarding extensions of time (see this Court's Order from 15 July 2019). Defendant presented a contract for transcription and communication showing that the transcript may not be ready for as long as 40 days. Moreover, Defendant showed that there was no harm to Plaintiff for such extension. Most importantly, Jeffrey L. Miller, attorney for Plaintiff, did not file and did not have a valid objection except for false statement he made in an email to Judge Hardison. Jeffrey L. Miller did not respond to to Defendant's Motion and did not dispute any representation Defendant made about his actions and statements.
4. On 24 September 2019 this Court denied Defendant's 20 September 2019 Motion without any discussion and on the same day Defendant promptly filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari with North Carolina Supreme Court to review said 24 September 2019 Order, which initiated docket for case number 306P18-2.
5. On 25 September 2019 Judge Hardison signed Order for Settlement of Record on Appeal but have not filed it.
6. On 27 September 2019 Defendant filed Motion for Temporary Suspection of NCRAP Rule 11 Pending Review of Petition for Writ of Certiorari with NC Supreme Court (306P18-2) and asked that NC Supreme Court issue an Order allowing Judge Hardison to file his Order only after NC Supreme Court rules on Defendant's Petition. Defendant also filed Motion for Expedited Review with NC Supreme Court. As of this filing neither Petition nor any Motions have been ruled on by NC Supreme Court.
7. On 2 October 2019 Judge Hardision filed his Order for Settlement of Record on Appeal which was verbatim of Jeffrey L. Miller's Proposed Order without receiving response from Defendant.
8. On 9 October 2019 Jeffrey L. Miller filed with NC Supreme Court Response of Plaintiff-Appellee to Petitions and Motions of the Defendant-Appellant; and, Plaintiff's Motion to Tax Costs and Attorney Fees where in part he provided false statement that Defendant's 24 September 2019 Petition is moot because Judge Hardison filed his Order on 2 October 2019.
9. On 16 October 2019 Defendant filed Verified Response to Motion to Tax Costs and Attorney Fees and Gatekeeper Sanctions together with Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel arguing that Jeffrey L. Miller should be disqualified from any and all legal matters involving Defendant because his continuing dishonesty prejudices the Defendant and results in violation of Defendant's due process right.
10. Defendant files this motion on the last day he could possibly file it, which is fifteen (15) days after 2 October 2019 Order for Settlement of Record on Appeal as he was waiting to the last minute for any ruling whatsoever from NC Supreme Court. As of filing of this Motion there has been no indication when NC Supreme Court may rule on any documents in front of it, and so far it even ignored Defendant's Motion for Expedited Review.
11. Defendant-Appellant is diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (A.D.H.D.), which is a mental impairment that substantially limits his major life activities, and which is specifically listed in Federal Statute 28 C.F.R. § 35.108(b)(2) as a "disability." Defendant-Appellant must take medication twice daily to manage some of the A.D.H.D. symptoms.

SUPPORT IN LAW 

12.    N.C.R.A.P. Rule 2 provides that Appellate Court may vary the "requirements or provisions of any of [N.C.R.A.P.] rules" to "prevent manifest injustice to a party," such as when an individual with a disability is not provided proper accommodations and thus is prevented from fully exercising his or her constitutional right to access the courts.

13.    N.C.R.A.P. Rule 12(a) Provides that Record on Appeal shall be filed "[w]ithin fifteen days after the record on appeal has been settled by any of the procedures provided in Rule 11."

14.    N.C.R.A.P. Rule 27(c)(2) provides that for a good cause a party may file a motion "for extensions of time other than those specifically enumerated in Rule 27(c)(1) (...) to the appellate court to which appeal has been taken."

15.    Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S. Code 12131-12134), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553), the ADA Amendments Act Final Rule (81 FR 53202, published Aug. 11, 2016), and its implementing regulations, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S. Code §701), provide that public entities, such as state Courts, are prohibited from discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities, and requires such public entities to make reasonable modifications to their policies accomodating needs of such individuals.

SHOWING OF PROPER PURPOSE

16.    This motion is timely because it is filed on or before the deadline to file Record on Appeal, currently 17 October 2019. The timing of the filing is due to the fact that NC Supreme Court has not ruled on any relevant documents in front of it and thus it is not Defendant's fault.

17.    The rationale for additional time to file record on appeal comes from the fact that there are multiple documents in front of NC Supreme Court (306P18-2) which will determine how and when Defendant shall prepare and file his Record on Appeal with this Court. Thus, for now fault of his own, Defendant could not work on Record on Appeal.

18.    Requiring Defendant to file two Records on Appeal not only puts undue burden on the Defendant but also goes against the interest of judicial economy.

19.    ADHD is a genetic condition which Defendant-Appellant has since birth but was only diagnosed in 2006. He is currently receiving medications which he will have to take for the rest of his life. ADHD cannot be cured but can only be partially managed. Thus, having this condition is outside of the Defendant-Appellant control. Additional time is a reasonable accommodation given to individuals with ADHD as has been recognized by this Court in it Order of 15 July 2019.

20.    Defendant-Appellant is not acting for any improper purpose or to delay the resolution of this matter.

     WHEREFORE, Petitioner-Defendant asks for an extension of time to file record on appeal with this Court of additional fifteen (15) days days after NC Supreme Court rules on related Petition and Motions in front of it in case 306P18-2. 

Respectfully submitted, this 17th Day of October, 2019.

        /s/ Andrew Grodner    _    

Andrzej Grodner, pro se

(currently Andrew Grodner)

P.O. Box 3571

Greenville, NC 27836

252-558-3040

email: agrodnercase@gmail.com 

Defendant=-Appellant, pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

     I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of record by emailing and mailing a copy thereof by first-class mail, postage paid, and addressed as follows:

Mr. Jeffrey Miller, Esq.

Miller and Audino, LLP

2510 E. 10th Street

Greenville, NC 27858

252-493-6138

email: jeff@millerandaudino.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee

This the 17th Day of October, 2019.

        /s/ Andrew Grodner    _                       

Andrzej Grodner, pro se

(currently Andrew Grodner)

P.O. Box 3571

Greenville, NC 27836

252-558-3040

email: agrodnercase@gmail.com 

Defendant-Appellant, pro se

(NCSC, 306P18-2): VERIFIED RESPONSE TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES AND GATEKEEPER SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL

VERIFIED RESPONSE TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES AND GATEKEEPER SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL:
20191016.Response.and.Motion.to.Disqualify.Grodner.v.Grodner.306P18-2.pdf

Direct link: https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=255662

All files in the Supreme Court case: 306P18-2:
https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/search-results.php?sDocketSearch=306P18-2&exact=1


All files in the case COA case P19-308: https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/search-results.php?sDocketSearch=P19-308&exact=1

=========================

No. 306P18-2                                     THREE-A DISTRICT

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

*************************************************

HUNTER F. GRODNER,                )

     (now Summerlin)              )

Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent, )

                                   )        From Pitt County

     vs.                          )        No. (COA) P19-308

                                   )           

ANDRZEJ GRODNER,                  )          

     (now Andrew Grodner)          )          

     Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner,)          

____________________________________)

*************************************************

VERIFIED RESPONSE TO 

MOTION TO TAX COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES AND GATEKEEPER SANCTIONS

AND

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL

*************************************************

(Filed electronically 16 October 2019)

*****

TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA:

     Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Andrzej Grodner (currently Andrew Grodner) ("Defendant"), acting pro se, pursuant to North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure ("N.C.R.A.P.") Rules 25, 34 and 37, the NC Rules of Professional Conduct, NC General Statutes and case law, as well as the due process provisions and access to the courts provisions in both the United States and North Carolina Constitutions and responds to Jeffrey L. Miller's Motion to Tax Costs and Attorney Fees and Gatekeeper Order and respectfully requests this Court to deny it because it is not supported by fact and done solely to harass the Defendant. Consequently, based on Jeffrey L. Miller's knowing and willful false statements in his most recent Motion as well as volumnus past false statements in front of this and other tribunals made for the sole purpose of misleading presiding judges -- in violation of the Rules of Legal Ethics -- Defendant respectfully requests this Court to strike his pleadings and to further disqualify Jeffrey L. Miller from any and all legal matters involving Defendant because his continuing dishonesty prejudices the Defendant and results in violation of Defendant's due process right. In support of this Motion, Defendant shows the following:

INTRODUCTION

1. As a prefatory matter, Jeffrey L. Miller’s response to Defendant’s petition and motion were not filed timely and should be stricken for that reason alone [fifteen (15) days after the petition was filed and twelve (12) days after the motion was filed].
2. Further, it appears that there is no real party in interest and that Jeffrey L. Miller is acting on his own accord. See first paragraph of Defendant’s affidavit. This likewise warrants striking Jeffrey L. Miller’s pleading.
3. However, the gravamen of this pleading is that Jeffrey L. Miller routinely makes false, misleading and inflammatory statements both in hearings and in written pleadings that cause real, substantial injury to Defendant, who is acting pro se AND that he has done so again in his latest pleading (as explained below and in the attached affidavit).
4. Defendant is well aware that lay people and lay witnesses do not always tell the truth, even in court, even under oath. This comes as a surprise to no one. However it is different when Jeffrey L. Miller, a member of the Bar, especially one acting without any apparent client, makes untruthful statements directly to the Court and in his communications with a pro se litigant (See NC Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3, 8.2, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4(a), 8.4(a),(d),(f)).
5. The Courts, at least the ones in Pitt County, have accepted as true Jeffrey L. Miller’s false statements of law and fact because of his status as a lawyer. In fact, as outlined below, Judge Braddy actually stated on the record during a hearing (wherein Defendant’s American and Polish passports were confiscated) that he “believed” Jeffrey L. Miller was telling the truth (about case law authority that Jeffrey L. Miller simply made up and provided no citation) because Jeffrey L. Miller “would be in a lot of trouble with the Bar” if he wasn’t telling the truth. Jeffrey L. Miller wasn’t telling the truth, but Judge Braddy believed him and over 5 years later, Defendant still does not have his American and Polish passports though his elderly father lives in Poland! Instead of acting on his own statement, Judge Braddy filed motion to recuse himself (4 December 2018) after Defendant confronted Judge Braddy about it. Later, Judge Teague removed Judge Braddy because he determined that there was at least the appearance of bias against the Defendant in part because Judge Braddy believed in Jeffrey L. Miller's false statements (8 January 2018 Order), which validated Defendant's claims.
6. Jeffrey L. Miller’s false statements were pointed out to the trial court and the North Carolina Court of Appeal. The briefs and record are online (COA17-570), (COA17-813) at the North Carolina Court of Appeal electronic site and this Court may take judicial notice thereof. The courts took no action against Jeffrey L. Miller and did nothing to remedy the injustice. On appeal, Jeffrey L. Miller simply ignored his false assertion of legal authority to revoke a parent’s (American and Polish) passports in a child custody action. 
7. This seemingly typical judicial mindset (in Defendant’s experience) to believe every statement Jeffrey L. Miller makes - without corroboration - while simultaneously accepting no statements from the Pro Se Defendant as truthful (even with corroboration), makes it literally impossible for him to prevail. This is a denial of due process which has the effect of denying Defendant’s access to the courts.
8. Jeffrey L. Miller has done the same thing in his latest filing before this Court and Defendant fears that once again Jeffrey L. Miller’s (unsupported) false, misleading and harassing statements will be accepted as gospel while Defendant’s pro se contentions are rejected out of hand. (See Defendant’s attached affidavit.)
9. When a party violates the Rules that we are all expected to abide by, this Court has the inherent jurisdiction - and the duty - to provide a remedy to Jeffrey L. Miller’s misconduct and harm to Defendant. This immediate remedy is to remove Jeffrey L. Miller from any litigation involving Defendant.

SUPPORT IN FACT

10.    On 9 October 2019 Jeffrey L. Miller filed with this Court RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE TO PETITIONS AND MOTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; AND, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES where he made multiple false statements of material fact and misrepresented legal authority as listed by the attached AFFIDAVIT of the Defendant (EXHIBIT A).

11.    The current filing by Jeffrey L. Miller, where he provided multiple false statements to the tribunal, is just one of many he has provided in the past. It is overwhelming to keep track of all of them and the Defendant updates them via blog entry: False and misleading statements by Jeffrey L. Miller (very limited selection) https://grodnerdivorce.blogspot.com/p/false-statements-by-jeffrey-l-miller.html (current version is attached as EXHIBIT B)

SUPPORT IN LAW 

12.    This Court has jurisdiction to resolve matters related to attorney misconduct appearing before it because North Carolina General Statute § 84-36 specifically states that the Courts retained their original jurisdiction to address - and remedy - attorney misconduct: 

§ 84-36. Inherent powers of courts unaffected. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed as disabling or abridging the inherent powers of the court to deal with its attorneys.

13.    The inherent powers of courts is also affirmed by North Carolina State Bar own rules as stated in 27 N.C.A.C. Chapter 1B - Discipline and Disability Rules, Section .0100 Discipline and Disability of Attorneys, .0102 Procedure for Discipline, Rule (c)(2): 

Rule (c)(2) Inherent Authority of State Courts - The courts of this state have inherent authority to take disciplinary action against attorneys practicing therein, even in relation to matters not pending in the court exercising disciplinary authority.

14.    The North Carolina State Bar specifies that attorneys must stop representing a client when he or she violates NC BAR Rules of professional conduct.  Further, that only a judge can disqualify an attorney, as stated in RULE 1.16 DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION: 

(a)(1) Except as stated in paragraph, a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if: (1) the representation will result in violation of law or the Rules of Professional Conduct;: .............................. 

(c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.

15.    The North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct explicitly requires judges to maintain proper decorum and discipline attorneys who run afoul of the rules of legal ethics:

Canon 3(A)(1) A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge should be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism. 

Canon 3(A)(2) A judge should maintain order and decorum in proceedings before the judge. Canon 3(B)(3) A judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against a judge or lawyer for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware.

16.    There is voluminous case law confirming that judges have jurisdiction, and in fact, a duty to make sure attorneys abide by the rules of professional conduct, and take appropriate action if necessary. See Egelhof v. Szulik, 193 N.C. App. 612, 620-21, 668 S.E.2d 367, 373 (2008):

I. Inherent Power of the Court to Discipline Attorneys. The trial court's authority to impose sanctions is not limited to Rule 11. Sanctions can also be ordered under a court's inherent power to deal with attorneys appearing before it. North Carolina State Bar v. Randolph, 325 N.C. 699, 701, 386 S.E.2d 185, 186 (1989). "[I]t has been held repeatedly that in North Carolina there are two methods by which disciplinary action or disbarment may be imposed upon attorneys — statutory and judicial." Id., at 701-02, 386 S.E.2d at 186. "Nothing contained in [the statutes creating and empowering the State Bar to discipline attorneys] shall be construed as disabling or abridging the inherent powers of the court to deal with its attorneys." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 84-36 (2007). This power includes the power to disbar attorneys appearing before it. See In re Delk, 336 N.C. 543, 550, 444 S.E.2d 198, 201 (1994). (emphasis added)

17.    US Constitution guarantees due process in the Bill of Rights. In particular, the clause in the Fifth Amendment reads: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," while the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment adds: "(...) nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

SHOWING OF PROPER PURPOSE

18.    Because Jeffrey L. Miller has made false statements before this Court, as outlined in affidavit, therefore this Court has jurisdiction and duty to sanction him. However, Defendant does not ask for monetary sanctions or even disbarment, but simply disqualification without any other consequences. The the purpose is to allow this and any other Court to properly properly administer justice without prejudice against the Defendant.

19.    Because the record shows that it is not possible to find a judge who would resist false statements by Jeffrey L. Miller therefore the only remedy is to disqualify him because there is no expectation that he may every not provide false statements. 

20.    My experience has been that judges exhibit a predilection to accept statements made by attorney Miller, who regularly practices before them, without requiring proof or evidence of the veracity thereof. For example, Jeffrey L. Miller actually argued in this case that an appellate case he had personally handled held that NC judges specifically had the power to seize a parent’s passport in a child custody case.  When the Defendant asked to see Jeffrey L. Miller’s authority, because the Defendant did not believe (correctly) that any such authority existed, Pitt County Judge Galen Braddy stated on the record that he “believed” Jeffrey L. Miller and [would not require Jeffrey L. Miller to provide any citation to his purported legal support] because Jeffrey L. Miller as a lawyer would “be in a lot of trouble with the NC State Bar” if he misrepresented that legal authority.  The case Jeffrey L. Miller was referring to was Tabakova v. Teodorescu, No. COA09-424 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2010) (unpublished and attached as EXHIBIT C). Neither the trial court’s order or the COA opinion contained any holding remotely similar to what Jeffrey L. Miller had falsely represented. Nevertheless, the trial court blindly and blythely accepted attorney Miller’s false representation over the Defendant’s impotent pro se objections.  This was subsequently brought to the attention of both Pitt County judges and the North Carolina Court of Appeals, but no court exercised its duty to sanction Jeffrey L. Miller.  This had the effect of denying the Defendant’s right to due process and access to the courts. This was the Defendant has had to face. The lawyer is allowed to make false and misleading statements without support because he is at (theoretical) risk of disciplinary action for making untruthful statements AND WIN A LEGAL CONTEST HE SHOULD/COULD NOT HAVE WON. 

21.    Then when Jeffrey L. Miller's dishonesty is conclusively established, Jeffrey L. Miller suffers no disciplinary punishment (which obviously emboldens him) and the incorrect order is allowed to stand for some unrelated procedural reason and the Defendant is punished for his sincere efforts to point out the inequity by way of a gatekeeper order.   

22.    Due process is guaranteed to litigants in both the US (via the Fourteenth Amendment) and NC Constitutions. Under the American system of justice the courts do not gather facts and evidence.  That is the duty of the litigants - and lawyers - who appear before it. Therefore, the legal process is dependent upon the honesty and the integrity of the litigants who present the facts and suggest the applicable status of the law. When a lawyer intentionally misleads the tribunal, as has happened here, the other party is placed at an unfair advantage, akin to engaging in a fight with one hand tied behind his or her back.  The net effect is the absence of fairness, which is the essence of due process.  There is in fact no meaningful access to the courts when a lawyer is permitted to misrepresent the facts to the tribunal, especially when the other litigant is acting pro se. See NC Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 Candor Toward tribunal (https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/rules-of-professional-conduct/rule-33-candor-toward-the-tribunal/)

23.    The removal of Jeffrey L. Miller is necessary to protect Due Process right of the Defendant because there is no legal way to defend against false statements by Jeffrey L. Miller when he is able to have judges believe in them.

24.    There is no harm to Plaintiff because there is no pending litigation in divorce and only things related to Defendant, such as the seizure of his passport.

     WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court to disqualify Jeffrey L. Miller from any all litigation involving Defendant for repeated misrepresentations to the courts and for the reasons stated herein because this is the only remedy to protect Defendant's due process and allow the Defendant pro se litigant to have a meaningful access to the courts.

Respectfully submitted, this ______ day of __________, ____.

______________________________   

Andrzej Grodner, pro se

(currently Andrew Grodner)

P.O. Box 3571

Greenville, NC 27836

252-558-3040

email: agrodnercase@gmail.com 

Defendant-Appellant, pro se

VERIFICATION

The undersigned pro se Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner, after being duly sworn, says: The contents of the foregoing petition are true to my knowledge, except those matters stated upon information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true. 

______________________________

Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner 

Andrzej Grodner, pro se 

(currently Andrew Grodner) 

Pitt County, North Carolina 

Sworn to and subscribed before me 

This ______ (day) of _________(month), _____ (year).

___________________________________

Notary Public 

My Commission Expires: ____________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

     I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of record by emailing and mailing a copy thereof by first-class mail, postage paid, and addressed as follows:

Mr. Jeffrey Miller, Esq.

Miller and Audino, LLP

2510 E. 10th Street

Greenville, NC 27858

252-493-6138

email: jeff@millerandaudino.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee

This the _____ Day of ________, 2019.

_________________________________                       

Andrzej Grodner, pro se

(currently Andrew Grodner)

P.O. Box 3571

Greenville, NC 27836

252-558-3040

email: agrodnercase@gmail.com 

Defendant-Appellant, pro se