20181227.subpoena.Miller.pdf
20181227.subpoena.Braddy.pdf
20181227.subpoena.Hunter.pdf
20181227.subpoena.Eric.pdf
Statcounter - visit to the page
Pages visited
times.
Thursday, December 27, 2018
court document: Verified Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial on Motion for Summary Judgment to Remove Opposing Counsel
20181227.1156.rule.59.motion.pdf
===========================
===========================
STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE
GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
COUNTY
OF PITT DISTRICT
COURT DIVISION
FILE
NO.: 13 CVD 398
HUNTER
F. GRODNER, )
(now
Hunter Summerlin) )
Plaintiff, ) VERIFIED
RULE 59 MOTION FOR
) A NEW TRIAL ON
vs. ) MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT TO
) REMOVE OPPOSING COUNSEL
ANDRZEJ
GRODNER, )
(now Andrew Grodner) )
Defendant, )
________________________________)
NOW COMES the Defendant, Andrzej
Grodner, represented pro se, and pursuant to Rule 59 of the North Carolina
Rules Rules of Civil Procedure respectfully requests a new trial on his 2
November 2018 Verified Motion for Summary Judgement to Remove Opposing Counsel,
which was heard by Honorable Judge Braddy on 14 November 2018 in Pitt County
District Court, and the Order was entered on 19 December 2018. In support
hereof, Defendant shows:
- North Carolina General Statute Rule 1A-1.59(a)(2) states in part: "A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues for any of the following causes or grounds: (...) (2) Misconduct of the jury or prevailing party."
- Attorney for the Plaintiff, Jeffrey L. Miller, is a licensed in the State of North Carolina and his conduct is governed by the North Carolina State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct.
- North Carolina State Bar Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 MISCONDUCT ("NCSBRPC 8.4") states in part:
It is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a)
violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly
assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(c)
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that
reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer;
(d)
engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(f)
knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of
applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.
- North Carolina State Bar Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL ("NCSBRPC 3.3") states in part:
(a) A
lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1)
make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct
a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by
the lawyer;
(2)
fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction
known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and
not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(3)
offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer's
client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and
the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the
lawyer
shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to
the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony
of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is
false.
- During 14 November 2018 hearing Jeffrey L. Miller committed misconduct by knowingly and willfully providing multiple false statements of material fact to the Court in violation NCSBRPC 3.3(a)(1),(2),(3), including but not limited to:
- "He [Defendant] says that he can only communicate with me by email and that's not what your Order [13 December 2016] says [Tpp.10:line.16-17]. (...) Your Order did not say that he was to communicate and serve papers or do things by email only [Tpp.11:line.8-10]." However, the 13 December 2016 Order in fact says: "(...) Mr. Grodner is able to communicate directly with Mr. Miller via email only." [original emphasis] The incontrovertible proof that Jeffrey L. Miller has provided false statement knowingly and willfully to both the Defendant and the Court is that he has filed his 28 November 2018 Motion to Modify where he asks the Court to modify 13 December 2018 Order so that the Defendant is can only communicate with him via postal mail. It is a critically consequential false statement because Jeffrey L. Miller has been exclusively ignoring any and all correspondence from the Defendant concerning Court Order violations by his client and mother of the minor child, Mrs. Hunter Summerlin, which harms the minor child every day.
- "I'm prepared to litigate those matters in the proper forum and the proper way. This isn't it. [Tpp.15:line.14-16]," and later: "there is no basis in law that would authorize this Court to remove me [Tpp.14:line.18-19]." However, the 13 December 2013 Order to remove attorney Teresa Bryant states "the Court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter." The incontrovertible proof that Jeffrey L. Miller has provided false statement to the Court knowingly and willfully is that he wrote in the draft Order (sent to Defendant on 16 November 2018) that "this Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. This Matter is properly before the Court for hearing of the Defendant's motions." He wrote it even though he argued and convinced Honorable Judge Braddy otherwise during the 14 November 2018 hearing, but then he put the exact opposite statement in the draft Order, which is now also in the final Order filed on 19 December 2018. It is a critically consequential false statement because Honorable Judge Braddy made his decision based entirely on trust that Jeffrey L. Miller is truthful and in deliberate exclusion of any other argument, case law, or statute.
- "To the extent he [Defendant] made some statement about the passport issue (...) he's misrepresented those facts to you today [Tpp.21:line.6-11]" after the Defendant stated "at the concurring opinion by Judge Murphy, he says explicitly there is no case law that allows this court to have jurisdiction of a Polish passport. Mr. Miller directly, explicitly, willfully, knowingly lied to Your Honor, right there and it is proven through the appeals process. [Tpp.19:line.17-22]" The actual statement by Honorable Appeals Court Judge Murphy in 7 August 2018 Opinion is (unpublished Opinion in COA17-570 and COA17-813, copy included in the above-captioned court file, 13 CVD 398):
While
not artfully argued by the pro se Defendant, if the passport issued by the
Republic of Poland is in fact the property of a foreign sovereign nation, then
the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1604, would bar our exercise
of jurisdiction. (...) The desire of the District Court to act when faced with the
potential for a parent to flee with a child is in the best interests of
justice. However, exercising
jurisdiction over the property of a foreign sovereign nation is not within the
jurisdiction of state courts. [emphasis added]
The incontrovertible proof that
Jeffrey L. Miller has provided false
statement knowingly and willfully to both the trial and appellate Courts is
that he has not cited the purported case law in his Appellee Brief (filed 8
January 2018) and has not objected nor responded to any claims repeatedly made
by the Defendant-Appellant that no such case law exists, even during the most
recent hearing on 14 November 2018 where Defendant explicitly accused him of
lying and was willing to do so under oath should Jeffrey L. Miller choose to
cross-examine him about it. It is a
critically consequential false statement because it results in Defendant
being unlawfully denied his constitutionally protected right to travel abroad
for almost four (4) years since the Custody Order (1/9/2015) was entered, which
prevents him from performing his work duties of attending international
conferences or see his family or even travel for pleasure.
- Arguments made by a lawyer are not evidence of underlying facts and are only evidence of the statements made by a lawyer about the facts. Therefore none of the statements made by Jeffrey L. Miller in his pleadings and during any hearing can be used as evidence for findings of fact but they can be used to impeach them and demonstrate that they knowingly and willfully provided false statements.
- Above-mentioned, deliberate false statements by Jeffrey L. Miller resulted in Honorable Judge Braddy not considering merits of Defendant's Motion during 14 November 2018 hearing and thus the Defendant was denied a fair trial, providing valid ground for this Rule 59 Motion for a new trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant
respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order for a new trial on
Defendant's 2 November 2018 Motion for Summary Judgment to Remove Opposing
Counsel.
This
is the .... day of ................... (month), ........................ (year)
____________________________
Andrzej Grodner, pro se
(currently Andrew Grodner)
P.O. Box 3571
Greenville, NC 27836
(252) 558 3040
email: agrodnercase@gmail.com
Sworn
to and subscribed before me this
.... day of ...................
(month), ........................ (year)
(Official
Seal) ____________________________
Signature
of Notary Public
____________________________
Printed
Name of Notary Public
My
commission expires: _________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Andrzej Grodner,
Defendant in the cause, do hereby certify that the foregoing was served upon
all parties via email delivery per ORDER TO WITHDRAW entered on December 13,
2016 and by depositing in a post office or official depository under the
exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service a copy of the
same in a postage prepaid envelope properly addressed to counsel of record of
the parties as follows:
VIA EMAIL AND
BY US MAIL
Mr. Jeffrey
Miller, Esq.
Email
address: jeff@millerandaudino.com
US Postal
address: 2510 E. 10th Street
Greenville, NC
27858
This is the ....
day of .................. (month), ................. (year)
____________________________
Andrzej Grodner, pro se
(currently Andrew Grodner)
P.O. Box 3571
Greenville, NC 27836
(252) 558 3040
email: agrodnercase@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)