Divorce Blog: 03/07/19

20190307.hearing.transcript.version.20190315.pdf

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

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

CIVIL DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF PITT FILE NO. 13 CVD 398

]

HUNTER GRODNER (Now ]

Hunter Summerlin), ] Plaintiff ]

] T R A N S C R I P T

v. ]

] V O L U M E I O F I ANDRZEJ GRODNER (Now ]

Andrew Grodner), ]

Defendant. ]

]

The above-captioned case coming on for hearing on March 7, 2019, in the Civil District Court of Pitt County, Greenville, North Carolina, before the Honorable Paul Hardison, Judge Presiding, the following proceedings were had, to wit:

A P P E A R A N C E S:

Plaintiff: Jeffrey Miller Miller & Audino, LLP 2510 E. 10th Street Greenville, NC 27858

(252) 364-8929

Defendant: Andrew Grodner, pro se

Greenville, NC

Anna Davis, Assistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Justice 9001 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-9001

(919) 716-6400

TRANSCRIPT PREPARED BY: Ruffin Consulting, Inc.

Litigation Support Services 1815 Forest Hills Road West Wilson, NC 27893

(252) 243-9000

www.RuffinConsulting.com

Table of Contents

DISCUSSION AS TO ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT . . . . . . . . . 3

ARGUMENT BY MS. DAVIS AS TO MOTION TO QUASH

SUBPOENA FOR MS. HARTZOG TO APPEAR . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33

STATEMENT BY MR. MILLER AS TO MOTION TO QUASH

SUBPOENA FOR MS. HARTZOG TO APPEAR . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT 7, E-MAIL DATED JANUARY 8, 2019,

ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT 8, E-MAIL, ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE . . . .55

RULING BY THE COURT AS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR

CONTINUANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

DISCUSSION AS TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL . . . . . .66

============= PAGE 3

1 HEARING EXCERPT IN THE SUMMERLIN CASE WITH

2 THE HONORABLE PAUL HARDISON, JUDGE PRESIDING

3 CLERK: VONDA C. HAUSLE

4 THE COURT: Court is back in session. This is

5 the case of Hunter Grodner Summerlin versus Andrew Grodner,

6 file number 13CVD398. Parties ready?

7 (background)

8 THE COURT: Good morning.

9 (background)

10 DISCUSSION AS TO ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT:

11 THE COURT: What is the nature of the matter

12 before the Court today?

13 MR. GRODNER: Your Honor, yeah, I’m not sure

14 (inaudible). I appreciate you letting me go first. I

15 believe that this hearing initiated on – what happens today

16 initiates from 12 October 2018 motion that I filed as a

17 motion to remove Mr. Miller as an attorney from the case and

18 we are here today because of that. There are many different

19 motions, objections, all sorts of things, but I think that’s

20 where it started. And today, I’d like to start by making a

21 statement under oath, if I could. It’s just five minutes.

22 THE COURT: Hold – hold on just a moment. So,

23 this is a motion to remove Counsel?

24 MR. GRODNER: Before we do that, the most recent

25 thing that I had filed was the ---

============= PAGE 4

1 THE COURT: What is scheduled for today?

2 MADAM CLERK: I think all pending motions.

3 THE COURT: Okay.

4 MR. MILLER: Judge, maybe I can cut to the chase.

5 An order was entered by the Court that denied his motion to

6 remove me as Ms. Summerlin’s counsel. He, thereafter, filed

7 a motion that is called, “Verified Rule 59 Motion for a New

8 Trial, a motion for summary judgment to remove opposing

9 counsel,” which he filed December 27th of 2018. Beginning in

10 October, he began issuing subpoenas to me, personally, to my

11 client, to my client’s husband, and to other people; and with

12 each subpoena, there were motions objecting and to quash

13 those subpoenas. Some of those have moved along, and one of

14 the issues was decided in the order that’s entered by Judge

15 Braddy. I, then, because of the hearing with Judge Braddy,

16 filed a motion to modify and limit his communications with

17 me. I filed a motion to strike, summarily deny and dismiss

18 for sanctions and for a gatekeeper prefiling restraint order

19 against Mr. Grodner. That was filed January 11th of ’19. He

20 served another subpoena on me to appear in court today and to

21 produce an item in a 30-plus year-old case that is not

22 involved in this matter. I’m sure we will talk about that.

23 I filed an objection, a motion to quash that subpoena, which

24 was for today. The past matters involved attorneys fees

25 requests and sanction requests and Judge Braddy, in his

============= PAGE 5

1 order, left those issues open because we still have attorneys

2 fee issues pending in what he’s done with the Court of

3 Appeals and now the Supreme Court. It is my position that

4 the attorneys fees should just all be heard at one time with

5 regard to Mr. Grodner, so I’m not here today seeking a

6 decision on the attorneys fees requests. So, essentially,

7 there are four open and pending matters, beginning with Mr.

8 Grodner’s Rule – verified Rule 59 motion and my motion to

9 limit his communications.

10 THE COURT: Counsel?

11 MS. DAVIS: Good morning, Your Honor. Anna

12 Davis, from the Attorney General’s Office, representing Megan

13 Hartzog in this matter. The AG’s Office became involved on

14 January 4th of this year. I received a call from our general

15 counsel saying that Judge Braddy had been subpoenaed by

16 Mr. Grodner in a hearing for that Monday, which was January

17 7th. I came to Pitt County Monday morning and filed a motion

18 to quash on behalf of Judge Braddy. I didn’t know that the

19 subpoena had been withdrawn over the weekend, so nothing was

20 heard on the motion to quash. There was no reason to, at

21 that point. Since then, Mr. Grodner has included me on most

22 of his correspondence with judicial staff here, with

23 Mr. Miller. The reason I became involved in the case again

24 is because on February 25th, he sent a subpoena to Megan

25 Hartzog asking for – I would – I would consider it an

============= PAGE 6

1 interrogatory in his subpoena asking her to answer his

2 questions for this hearing. So, I’m here today on her

3 behalf. I filed a motion to quash on that, if – if we reach

4 that. I don’t need to be heard further. Thank you.

5 THE COURT: Thank you. You ready to proceed,

6 sir?

7 MR. GRODNER: So, if I could - I just talked to

8 Ms. Davis to let her go first. I’d like to make a short –

9 less than five-minute statement and we can – that’s gonna be

10 related just to the matter related to Ms. Davis and we can

11 proceed further, if that’s okay with Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: Yes. Proceed.

13 MR. GRODNER: Thank you.

14 THE COURT: If you will place your left hand on

15 the Bible, raise your right hand and face the clerk.

16 Mr. Grodner was duly sworn and testified the

17 following under oath:

18 THE COURT: Sit here, please.

19 (background)

20 THE COURT: State your name for the record.

21 THE WITNESS: My name is Andrew Grodner.

22 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Grodner, you may

23 proceed.

24 THE WITNESS: My name is Andrew Grodner. I’m

25 a pro se litigant in the divorce case in Pitt County, No.

============= PAGE 7

1 13CVD398, Grodner v Grodner. I’m an economics professor at

2 East Carolina University since 2004. I married the

3 plaintiff, Ms. Summerlin, formerly Ms. Hunter Grodner ---

4 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

5 THE WITNESS: Yes?

6 THE COURT: Sorry I interrupted you. What

7 motion are you addressing first?

8 THE WITNESS: I’m addressing the request for

9 continuance, which is the most recent ---

10 THE COURT: Well, sir, if you requested a

11 continuance, then you need to simply state the basis for your

12 continuance.

13 THE WITNESS: The basis for my continuance is that

14 Mr. Miller is lying to court officials, including Your Honor,

15 everybody else. There is no way to prevent him from lying

16 and, therefore, any hearing with his presence as an attorney

17 will be prejudicial towards me, just like it was prejudicial

18 throughout the course of Judge Braddy’s tenure. And this was

19 the reason why he had to recuse himself because he could not

20 prevent himself from believing Mr. Miller’s lies. And that’s

21 the basis for my request for continuance, and that very short

22 statement related precisely to this.

23 THE COURT: So, you’re requesting a continuance

24 because Counsel is still involved.

25 THE WITNESS: That is correct. Meaning that we

============= PAGE 8

1 cannot proceed with Mr. Miller being a counsel for

2 Ms. Summerlin because his continued lies is com- prejudicing

3 – prejudicing against me. So, just like Judge Braddy has

4 been recused from the case, it is my position that after

5 Judge Braddy has been recused, the lies have continued, the

6 Court is prejudiced against me; and it was a problem with

7 Judge Brady, it is a problem with Mr. Miller; and in order to

8 resolve the problem that was supposed to be addressed on the

9 7th of January, we have to remove Mr. Miller.

10 THE COURT: Counsel, any questions?

11 MR. MILLER: No, sir.

12 THE COURT: No questions. All right.

13 THE WITNESS: And ---

14 THE COURT: Was a – let me ask you a question.

15 Was a court order previously entered denying your motion to

16 remove Counsel?

17 THE WITNESS: It was an order denying summary

18 judgment. But my understanding is that denying summary

19 judgment only relates to whether there are any dis- disputing

20 the facts.

21 THE COURT: Any issues?

22 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, Your Honor?

23 THE COURT: Any issues for the Court to decide?

24 THE WITNESS: Related to?

25 THE COURT: The facts of the case.

============= PAGE 9

1 THE WITNESS: Yes. So, I’d like to present to the

2 Court that Mr. Miller has lied, and his lies are prejudiced

3 against me.

4 THE COURT: So, you are ---

5 MR. MILLER: I’m sorry, Your Honor. I-I want to

6 correct a misstatement to the Court – a misrepresentation to

7 the Court. Judge Braddy entered an order December 17th,

8 2018, and I’ll read exactly what his order says. “The

9 defendant’s motion to remove the plaintiff’s attorney is

10 denied.” Now, that should be in the file. In addition, it

11 says, “The defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

12 denied.”

13 THE WITNESS: Can I?

14 THE COURT: Yes, sir.

15 THE WITNESS: And I want to add that what

16 Mr. Miller omitted is that I have filed a Rule 59 motion

17 asking for a new trial, and I have laid out that during the

18 hearing of October 14th, Mr. Miller made few more false

19 statements that made that decision wrong. So, hard for me to

20 say that – there’s, obviously, an order; however, I filed a

21 Rule 59 motion for a new trial, claiming that that order was

22 improper.

23 THE COURT: And when you say, “that order was

24 improper,” what do you mean, sir?

25 THE WITNESS: I mean that I was prejudiced by Mr.

============= PAGE 10

1 Miller’s lies. Meaning that he made statements that found

2 its way into the order that were false, and it was improper.

3 During the hearing, basically, Mr. Miller has deceived Ms. –

4 Judge Braddy and made Judge Braddy say things that were not

5 true, which proven – which has been proven later in that what

6 Judge Braddy said during the hearing was different than what

7 he wrote in the order.

8 THE COURT: Do you have any evidence to present

9 to the Court?

10 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this is just one of the

11 many ---

12 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

13 THE WITNESS: Yes.

14 THE COURT: This is a methodical process.

15 THE WITNESS: I gotcha.

16 THE COURT: We address each issue and then we

17 can proceed to the next issue.

18 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

19 THE COURT: Now, with respect to this motion

20 that was denied by the judge, you are now filing a Rule 59

21 motion ---

22 THE WITNESS: It’s already filed, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: --- saying that that judge made an

24 error?

25 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

============= PAGE 11

1 THE COURT: And what does Rule 59 provide?

2 THE WITNESS: To the best of my understanding and,

3 obviously, it would be helpful for me to look at this motion.

4 I believe Your Honor probably has it in the file. I,

5 obviously, don’t want to misspeak.

6 THE COURT: Do you have a copy that ---

7 THE WITNESS: I do. Yes, Your Honor.

8 THE COURT: You may get it.

9 (background)

10 MR. MILLER: Judge, may I hand up documents I’ve

11 served on Mr. Grodner, as well, and I believe a lot of the

12 motions and orders are obtained in the index in that

13 notebook, as well as some relevant case law.

14 (background)

15 UNKNOWN MALE: (inaudible) yesterday.

16 THE COURT: Say what?

17 UNKNOWN MALE: I started here yesterday.

18 THE COURT: Okay. (inaudible)

19 UNKNOWN MALE: Yeah, I’ve been trying to go around

20 and meet everybody in the different courtrooms and stuff, so.

21 So, it’s good – it’s a good opportunity for me. A little

22 change of pace. You know, different office, different

23 people.

24 THE COURT: Yeah.

25 UNKNOWN MALE: After 20 years, it was time to do

============= PAGE 12

1 something.

2 THE COURT: Mr. Grodner?

3 THE WITNESS: Yes.

4 THE COURT: You may proceed, sir.

5 THE WITNESS: So, on December 27th, 2018, at

6 11:56, I did file verified Rule 59 motion. I said it’s

7 verified because it was notarized so, to the best of my

8 understanding, this is equivalent of being an affidavit. So,

9 my statement under oath, as well. And in the first

10 paragraph, I stated the reason for the motion. It says,

11 “North Carolina General Statute Rule 1(a)-159(a)(2) states in

12 part, ‘a new trial may be granted to all or any of the

13 parties and all or part of the issues for any of the

14 following causes or grounds.’” Number two says, “misconduct

15 of the jury or prevailing party,” and since Mr. Miller was at

16 the hearing, he argued on behalf, I guess, of himself because

17 it was a motion to remove him. He never officially filed an

18 objection and I’m not sure, really, how legally that is

19 because he did not file anything whatsoever. He just spoke,

20 you know, position to my motion and based on what he said,

21 the judge ended up ruling against me. Therefore, it is my

22 understanding that he was the prevailing party and misconduct

23 is false statements that he has communicated to Judge Braddy.

24 Misstatements of actual fact. And North Carolina State Bar

25 Rule for Professional Conduct 8.4 states in part, “It is

============= PAGE 13

1 professional misconduct for a lawyer to: engage in conduct

2 involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that

3 reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer;

4 engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration

5 of justice; knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in

6 conduct that is in violation of applicable rules of judicial

7 conduct or other law.” And North Carolina State Bar Rule of

8 Professional Conduct 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal, states

9 in part, “A lawyer shall not knowingly: make a false

10 statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to

11 correct a false statement of material fact or law previously

12 made to the tribunal by the lawyer.” (D) is one of my basis.

13 I basically said in my letter, at least with the false

14 statements, he made those and based on those false

15 statements, the ruling was against me. It was improper.

16 Therefore, the question is that’s Mr. Miller telling the

17 truth or not. That case is only about this, Your Honor.

18 There’s really nothing else. I’m basically saying Mr. Miller

19 is a liar and everything that happens in his presence is

20 skewed because it isn’t possible for the Court to determine

21 when he’s lying and when he’s not. And it was my position

22 when I sent e-mail to Judge Braddy that resulted in his

23 recusal, I exactly wrote that. It was, I believe, on 18th of

24 November 2018, I wrote to Judge Braddy, “If Judge Braddy is

25 going to believe Mr. Miller’s lies, I will have to file a

============= PAGE 14

1 motion to recuse him.” I did not have to do it. Judge

2 Braddy filed said motion himself. I did not even show up for

3 the hearing. And Judge Teague decided that in – that,

4 indeed, that was enough reason to recuse Judge Braddy. But

5 my statement here is that if that was supposed to solve the

6 problem, it did not because after that hearing, Mr. Miller

7 continued to lie and, therefore, the judge continued to

8 prejudice against me.

9 THE COURT: What evidence did you have for the

10 Court to support your allegations?

11 THE WITNESS: And this is why I put myself under

12 oath. I would like to make a statement precisely ---

13 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

14 THE WITNESS: Yes.

15 THE COURT: What evidence can you present to

16 this Court to support your allegations (inaudible)?

17 THE WITNESS: My statement under oath right now.

18 Because I am aware ---

19 THE COURT: Do you have any documented evidence?

20 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. I’m going to

21 introduce them as part of my statement.

22 THE COURT: And what are those documents, sir?

23 THE WITNESS: These are e-mails that will be proof

24 that ---

25 THE COURT: E-mails between?

============= PAGE 15

1 THE WITNESS: The allegation is that Mr. Miller –

2 and Ms. Davis has said in front of this – that he lied to me;

3 to Ms. Davis, actually, personally; to Ms. Hartzog about

4 communication between Ms. Hartzog and himself in relation to

5 filing and preparation of 8 January 2019 order to recuse

6 Judge Braddy. And Mr. Miller has made multiple false

7 statements saying that he did not have any communication, and

8 I want to basically present it as evidence, and I put myself

9 under oath.

10 THE COURT: Do you have any other evidence,

11 other than you saying that – that Mr. Miller has provided

12 false information to the Court?

13 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: And where’s that information?

15 THE WITNESS: I’m gonna – if I can make it as part

16 of my statement and let attorneys determine if this is

17 enough, then I would suggest that we proceed this way. I-I

18 would like to give Ms. Davis and Mr. Miller to confront me on

19 this. I think this is the most preferable for them to submit

20 such strong allegations and-and-and-and then Your Honor will

21 be able to decide where the truth lies.

22 THE COURT: Have any questions?

23 MR. MILLER: Judge, as-as a preliminary matter -

24 and-and I want Mr. Grodner to have whatever say he wants

25 within the rules of the law – I filed a-a motion to summarily

============= PAGE 16

1 dismiss this verified Rule 59 motion, and I’m not sure

2 whether he’s arguing about his continuance motion now or his

3 Rule 59 motion. The case law is very clear that a Rule 59

4 motion does not apply to an interlocutory order by Judge

5 Braddy’s order denying my removal. The judge heard the same

6 litany of statements from – from him at that time, about the

7 matter, and denied the removal. I suggested that if he

8 wanted to make these kinds of allegations, the State Bar

9 would certainly accede them and I’d certainly be happy to

10 confront each and every one of them. He’s engaged in a

11 process of publicly making these kinds of statements and I’m

12 anxious for there to be an end to it. And I’ve suggested the

13 proper forum for him to do that in a legal manner. He has

14 chosen instead to publish a blog; to recite what he wants to

15 recite on his blog; and to make these statements to court

16 officials in the context of frivolous motions, frivolous

17 legal arguments before the Court. In the notebook that I’ve

18 given you are the cases that – make very clear that I’ve

19 provided those to Mr. Grodner, as well, in the materials I

20 gave him – that his motion for a - a Rule 59 motion to have a

21 new trial on the denial of a previous motion, it is not

22 founded and is not allowed by the rules. And so there is no

23 basis or authority for this Court to grant what Mr. Grodner

24 is seeking by law. He wants to have a podium and a forum to

25 make his statements, and I’ve suggested a place he can go,

============= PAGE 17

1 but if Your Honor wants him to make them here, that’s

2 certainly fine with me. However, there is no basis for

3 continuance and there is no basis for a Rule 59 motion, and

4 I’ve asked that that be summarily denied by the Court. The -

5 the cases for that proposition are in the notebook, in the

6 back.

7 THE COURT: Mr. Grodner, did you receive a copy

8 of this?

9 THE WITNESS: Oh, no. Not at all. I was not

10 informed. Mr. Miller does not – he will send me e-mails ---

11 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

12 THE WITNESS: Yes.

13 THE COURT: My question is: did you – have you

14 seen any of these documents?

15 THE WITNESS: Just there. By there. Not before I

16 entered this courtroom, Your Honor.

17 THE COURT: Would you like to look at them?

18 THE WITNESS: Not at this moment. I would like --

19 -

20 THE COURT: Okay. Well, listen, sir. Rule 59,

21 you say there is an irregularity or misconduct. It will take

22 more than just your statement to establish that. Do you have

23 some evidence from the State Bar? Because I believe it’s

24 been filed with the State Bar and the State Bar has found

25 that Mr. Miller has violated some code of conduct or rule of

============= PAGE 18

1 professionalism?

2 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, part of the reason why

3 Ms. Hartzog has been subpoenaed is because she’s my evidence.

4 She can testify to the fact that Mr. Miller did lie to her

5 and, as a result, he lied to me, to her, and ---

6 THE COURT: So, are you calling her as a

7 witness?

8 THE WITNESS: In fact, she is subpoenaed. She’s

9 not here.

10 THE COURT: Did you intend to call her as a

11 witness?

12 THE WITNESS: Yes, there’s outstanding subpoena,

13 and Ms. Davis is here representing her.

14 MS. DAVIS: Your Honor, Ms. Hartzog is present.

15 There are about 900 cases in this county that she has to

16 attend to and she’s doing that right now. But if the Court

17 would like her to be here, she will be here.

18 THE COURT: Do you want her here to testify?

19 THE WITNESS: I would, but as I – again, I think

20 that for the benefit of Ms. Davis and Mr. Miller and

21 everybody, it would be better if I make a short statement

22 about that and then we’ll see if we need to ask Ms. Hartzog

23 to come and testify.

24 THE COURT: Sir, if you’re going to present your

25 evidence, you need to go ahead and present your evidence.

============= PAGE 19

1 THE WITNESS: That’s what I plan to do as part of

2 my statement, Your Honor. And to the best of my

3 understanding, a statement under oath is evidence.

4 THE COURT: Yes, sir, but you did not come to

5 court to read a summary. You can state what facts that

6 relate to the motion that you have filed without a summary of

7 the entire relationship. Because you began by saying you

8 were married on this date, you were married on that date.

9 But you’re here for specific motions and that’s what the

10 Court is advised to address. You understand what I mean?

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, and I have not

12 finished my statement, and I think this is somewhat unfair

13 representation what I’m about to say.

14 THE COURT: Say that again.

15 THE WITNESS: I have not finished my statements

16 and Your Honor make a representation of my statement that I

17 think is unfair.

18 THE COURT: I haven’t made a representation of

19 your statement, sir. I’m simply saying that when you get to

20 the witness stand, if you have filed a motion, then your

21 testimony should relate to that specific motion.

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: That’s what the Court is saying.

24 THE WITNESS: Yes.

25 THE COURT: You understand?

============= PAGE 20

1 THE WITNESS: Yes. And – yes.

2 THE COURT: So, on your motion for a new trial,

3 those – the information that you provide to the Court should

4 relate to Rule 59. You understand what I mean now?

5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

6 THE COURT: And then whatever other motion you

7 have, then that information, that evidence, those statements

8 should relate to that specific motion.

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

10 THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed.

11 THE WITNESS: I’m gonna start again. It’s less

12 than five minutes long.

13 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

14 THE WITNESS: Yes.

15 THE COURT: Which motion are you addressing now?

16 THE WITNESS: I’m addressing the very one at top.

17 THE COURT: I need one at a time. Which one are

18 you addressing first?

19 THE WITNESS: Request for continuance. The one at

20 the top and ---

21 THE COURT: Excuse me.

22 THE WITNESS: Yes.

23 THE COURT: You requested for motion for

24 continuance.

25 THE WITNESS: Well, there’s no other way for me to

============= PAGE 21

1 ---

4 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir. THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Listen, I’m not trying to be

5 difficult, but this is a methodical process: A, B, C, D.

6 What motion are you addressing first?

7 THE WITNESS: Let’s proceed this way. I have

8 issued subpoena to ask Ms. Hartzog to appear at this hearing.

9 THE COURT: Excuse me.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes.

11 THE COURT: Before we get there, you have a

12 motion to set aside – I mean, motion for a new trial. Is

13 that correct?

14 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

15 THE COURT: And what other motion do you have

16 today? Any other motions?

17 THE WITNESS: Request for continuance.

18 THE COURT: Okay. Request for continuance.

19 THE WITNESS: Yes.

20 THE COURT: And what else?

21 THE WITNESS: Since that hearing was scheduled by

22 Mr. Miller, he put all pending motions. I’m actually not

23 aware ---

24 THE COURT: Excuse me.

25 THE WITNESS: Yes. I have not set that hearing,

============= PAGE 22

1 Your Honor.

2 DISCUSSION AS TO MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL:

3 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir. You have a motion

4 for new trial. We’ll stick to that.

5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

6 THE COURT: That’s the first motion. The second

7 motion is a continuance. Is that correct?

8 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: Now, do you have any other motions?

10 THE WITNESS: To the best of my understanding, Mr.

11 Miller had filed ---

12 THE COURT: Do you have any other motions

13 pending for today?

14 THE WITNESS: No.

15 THE COURT: Okay. Now, is there any other

16 evidence that you wish to present to this Court as it relates

17 to Rule 59?

18 THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honor, when we ---

19 THE COURT: All right. Go right ahead.

20 THE WITNESS: Okay. My name is Andrew Grodner.

21 I’m a pro se litigant in the divorce case in Pitt County, No.

22 13CVD398, Grodner v Grodner. I’m an economics professor at

23 East Carolina University since 2004. I married the

24 plaintiff, Ms. Summerlin, in June 2010 and our son was born

25 in August 2011. I have been served with a personal complaint

============= PAGE 23

14 23

for divorce and custody in February 2013 by her attorney, Jeffrey Miller, who has been representing her ever since. Recently, I have received numerous direct e-mail messages from Mr. Miller, who had knowingly and willfully lied about preparation and filing of 8 January 2019 order to recuse Judge Braddy. I have personal knowledge about those e-mails because I was one of the recipients of those e-mails. I also know that the following statement by Mr. Miller in those e- mails are false. It is (inaudible) evidence directly contradicting his statements. Mr. Miller lied in his e-mail on January 9th, 2019, at 11:38, when he wrote, “As I have indicated to you,” meaning Ms. Hartzog, “I do not intend to submit any valid points suggested findings.” And that will

be Exhibit 1 of my statement and this is a copy for ---

15 MR. MILLER: Judge, I’m – I’m familiar with that

16 e-mail.

17 THE COURT: All right.

18 THE WITNESS: Okay. Mr. Miller lied in his e-mail

25 on January 9th, 2019, at 12:57 p.m., when he wrote, “My only contact with Judge Teague about an order has been in the course of the hearing of this matter.” This will be Exhibit

2. I think Mr. Miller is familiar with this one, as well. (background)

THE WITNESS: That’s Exhibit 2. (background)

============= PAGE 24

2 Exhibit 2?

4 p.m.

9 MR. MILLER: Judge, can I ask which one is

THE WITNESS: The 9th of January 2019, at 12:57

(background)

THE WITNESS: Mr. Miller lied in his e-mail --- MR. MILLER: Excuse me, Judge.

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. MILLER: I-I just have three copies that have

10 a heading indicating regarding January 7, 2019, hearing and

11 they all are January 9, 2019, dated. Is there another one?

12 THE WITNESS: Can I see what you’ve got? This is

13 all January 9th, 2019, at 11:38.

14 MR. MILLER: I understand that. I’m trying to

15 understand what Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 are.

16 THE WITNESS: Exhibit 1 is e-mail from January

17 9th, 2019, at 11:38.

18 THE COURT: Oh, the one that I have – January –

19 what – what day?

20 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor?

21 THE COURT: What date did you say?

22 THE WITNESS: January 9th, 2019.

23 THE COURT: At what time?

24 THE WITNESS: Exhibit 1 is 11:38. And the false

25 statement --

============= PAGE 25

1 THE COURT: Excuse me.

2 THE WITNESS: --- is highlighted.

3 THE COURT: Excuse me.

4 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Okay. All right. You may proceed.

6 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

7 MR. MILLER: Is there an Exhibit 2, Judge? I’m –

8 I know that you said Exhibit (inaudible)

9 THE COURT: He handed – I have something here.

10 It has Wednesday, January 9th, 12:57 p.m.

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. This is ---

12 THE COURT: Public records request for any and

13 all communications with Mr. Miller and Ms. Davis and Pitt

14 County Court House officials regarding Judge Braddy’s recusal

15 order.

16 MR. MILLER: I don’t. I just have (inaudible)

17 (background)

18 MR. MILLER: Thank you.

19 THE WITNESS: Mr. Miller lied twice in his e-mail

20 of January 23rd, 2019, at 3:59 p.m., when he wrote, “Is

21 everyone else on (inaudible)?” And I believe he referred to

22 Ms. Davis, Ms. Hartzog, and whoever was in courthouse. I

23 ultimately declined the invitation. (inaudible) invitation

24 to provide findings of fact. And just from the side, I

25 believe that Ms. Davis, as herself, actually, can testify to

============= PAGE 26

1 some of those statements because she was a recipient of those

2 e-mails and she was present at that hearing. And,

3 Mr. Miller, in that e-mail I just spoke of, he also lied in

4 the same e-mail by saying, “I told,” there is an underline in

5 his e-mail, “Megan—”

6 THE COURT: Excuse me.

7 THE WITNESS: Yes.

8 THE COURT: Which?

9 THE WITNESS: This is (inaudible). I’m so sorry

10 about this. Let me be systematic about it. This is January

11 23rd, 2019, at 3:59 p.m., and this is from Mr. Miller.

12 THE COURT: Now, which – is this Exhibit 3?

13 THE WITNESS: That is Exhibit 3, Your Honor. Yes,

14 that is correct. And the second statement that was false ---

15 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

16 THE WITNESS: Yes.

17 THE COURT: Hold on.

18 (background)

19 THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed.

20 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. So,

21 Mr. Miller, in that e-mail from January 23rd, 2019, at 9:15

22 p.m., the second false statement was, “I told Megan I was not

23 going to submit anything,” and he referenced two proposed

24 findings of fact related to the January 8th, 2019, order.

25 Mr. Miller lied in his e-mail on January 24th, 2019, at 11:38

============= PAGE 27

1 a.m., when he wrote, “I orally told Megan I was not going to

2 submit anything.” This is going to be Exhibit 4. Again,

3 this is January 24th, 2019, at 11:38 a.m.

4 (background)

5 THE WITNESS: Mr. Miller lied in his e-mail on

6 January 31st, 2019 ---

7 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

8 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: Are you now referring to this

10 document?

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: So, this is Exhibit 4.

13 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: You may proceed.

15 THE WITNESS: Thank you. Mr. Miller lied in his

16 e-mail on January 31st ---

17 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

18 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Simply state what you are talking

20 about.

21 THE WITNESS: Regarding Exhibit 4, that Your Honor

22 has in hand I believe, there is a highlighted text in the

23 first line of the e-mail, where Mr. Miller says, “I orally

24 told Megan I would not be submitting anything,” and my

25 statement is that was a false statement by Mr. Miller. It is

============= PAGE 28

5 28

a highlighted part of the e-mail, at the very top. At the very beginning, at the very top. Yes, Your Honor, when you read the beginning of the e-mail – this is e-mail from

Mr. Miller, where he begins by saying, “I didn’t (inaudible)

think,” and then he follows up, “I orally told Megan I would

6 not be submitting anything.” That part is a false statement

7 by Mr. Miller.

8 THE COURT: Go ahead.

9 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Miller

10 lied in his e-mail on January 31st, 2019, at 4:21 p.m., when

11 he wrote, “I do not know if or how anything was communicated

12 to Judge Teague,” where Mr. Miller meant – where Mr. Miller

13 meant regarding the 8 January 2019 order. This is going to

14 be Exhibit 5. So, this is January 31st, 2019 at 4:21 p.m.

15 (background)

16 THE WITNESS: And let me be very clear. I

17 highlighted the false statements. This is (inaudible) – this

18 is, again, Mr. Miller’s e-mail to me and-and, obviously, you

19 can see other people on it. In fact, including Ms. Davis.

20 So, he actually lied to Ms. Davis. And it’s line one, two,

21 three, four, and five. I’m waiting for Your Honor to give me

22 go.

23 THE COURT: You may proceed.

24 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. And, lastly,

25 Mr. Miller lied in his e-mail on February 1st, 2019, at 2:14

============= PAGE 29

1 p.m., when he wrote three statements: “Judge Teague did not

2 receive a message from me.” “I did not have any – any

3 (inaudible) contact with Judge Teague.” “I have not lied

4 about anything.” And that’s going to be Exhibit 6. And

5 throughout the whole e-mail, this is highlighted.

6 (background)

7 THE COURT: You may be seated.

8 THE WITNESS: That’s it. And this is my evidence.

9 These are all false statements, and I understand that if

10 Counsel does not question my statements, they become

11 evidence. They are true, and I’d like to use that further in

12 the hearing as, basically, fact that Mr. Miller is lying.

13 MR. MILLER: Judge, I’ll reserve my right to

14 question. Thus far, all I have are his claim and contention

15 that these things that he’s handed you that I’ve lied in

16 those statements. I’ll wait for something further. I don’t

17 deny any of the e-mails. I stipulate to the statements of

18 the e-mails.

19 THE COURT: Ms. Davis.

20 MS. DAVIS: Briefly, Your - Your Honor. I-I

21 must’ve done a poor job in explaining to Mr. Grodner what my

22 role is. My role is to represent Megan Hartzog in the

23 subpoena. It is not my role to ask questions of this

24 witness, of this party. I-I have no questions for this

25 gentleman.

============= PAGE 30

1 (background)

2 THE WITNESS: So, if there’s no objection, I’d

3 like to claim to you that neither Mr. Miller nor Ms. Davis

4 questioned that Mr. Miller has been lying. He’s a liar.

5 And, therefore, he should not be part of the hearing because

6 it’s prejudicial towards me.

7 THE COURT: All right. You may step down.

8 (background)

9 THE COURT: Any further evidence? Any other

10 witnesses? Any other evidence to present?

11 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor. Can I – can I make

12 another statement?

13 THE COURT: Excuse me?

14 MR. GRODNER: Can I make another statement, then?

15 If Mr. Miller and Ms. Davis have nothing else to say, yes,

16 I’d like to present more evidence. Yes, Your Honor.

17 THE COURT: You said you were finished. When I

18 said, “You have anything else?” You said, “No.” So, that’s

19 why I told you you could step down because I was going to

20 proceed with the closing arguments.

21 MR. GRODNER: Okay. So, I suppose I was not

22 anticipating Mr. Miller and Ms. Davis ---

23 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

24 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

25 THE COURT: I don’t want to be rude. You ever

============= PAGE 31

1 been to law school?

2 MR. GRODNER: No, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: When you represent yourself, you’re

4 held to the same standards as an attorney.

5 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor.

6 THE COURT: I don’t make the rules. What I want

7 you to understand is unlike some TV shows, there’s a process

8 that the Court proceeds. Do you understand what I mean?

9 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor.

10 THE COURT: You ever have an attorney represent

11 you, sir?

12 MR. GRODNER: I used to.

13 THE COURT: Well, when I asked you if you had

14 any other witnesses, you didn’t call anybody. Is that

15 correct?

16 MR. GRODNER: Well, I do call Ms. Hartzog, so ---

17 THE COURT: Well, listen sir. Let-let me

18 explain this. I’m not here to coach you, and I’m not being

19 rude but, again, when you step into the courtroom, you’re on

20 your own. And if you don’t follow the rules or the process,

21 then decisions are often unfavorable. You understand what I

22 mean, sir?

23 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: Because it’s not what one feels,

25 it’s what the law says that the Court has to follow and

============= PAGE 32

1 sometimes that’s not acceptable, but that’s the way the rule

2 of law operates.

3 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor.

4 THE COURT: So, do you have any other witnesses

5 you want to call?

6 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor. I want to call Ms.

7 Hartzog – Ms. Megan Hartzog. And the reason why I’d like to

8 call her ---

9 THE COURT: No, sir.

10 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Do you want to call her?

12 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

13 THE COURT: Any objection?

14 MS. DAVIS: Your Honor, I have filed a motion to

15 quash his subpoena.

16 THE COURT: Okay. You’ll be heard on your

17 motion at this time.

18 ARGUMENT BY MS. DAVIS AS TO MOTION TO QUASH

19 SUBPOENA FOR MS. HARTZOG TO APPEAR:

20 MS. DAVIS: Thank you, Your Honor. There are

21 two bases that I would ask that you quash this subpoena.

22 First, I-I’d ask you to - to consider under Rule 45 that a

23 subpoena of Ms. Hartzog is unreasonable and it is burdensome

24 and it is oppressive. Part of the reason for my position is

25 knowing that it appears that any person – any personnel, any

============= PAGE 33

1 employee who touches this case becomes the recipient of

2 constant communication and constant contact for Mr. Grodner.

3 Initially in this case, it’s my understanding that Kay Brown,

4 who’s the other case coordinator in Pitt County, was on this

5 case and due to the constant barrage of communication from

6 this witness, she was removed from the case and Ms. Hartzog

7 was put on this case. Between the two of them, it’s my

8 understanding that they manage about 900 cases in this

9 county. I understand this case is extremely important to

10 Mr. Grodner and that it is paramount to him that he be heard

11 on this case, but he is just one of many people in this

12 county who have family court cases in this court. It is

13 unreasonable that simply because she comes to work and does

14 her job that she is then the subject of a subpoena from a pro

15 se litigant. In the subpoena that he sent her, he seeks to

16 propound answers from her to, essentially, an interrogatory,

17 which under Rule 33, he is not able to send interrogatories

18 to a non-party. Ms. Hartzog is not a party to this action.

19 The resources that this courthouse is having to spend to

20 manage this case is unreasonable and it is oppressive. It’s

21 my understanding that there are people who are afraid of

22 Mr. Grodner; that there are people who, after interacting

23 with him, are in tears. I do not – I respectfully ask the

24 Court that Ms. Hartzog be allowed to do her job and not be

25 subjected to the wild subpoenas that are sent by Mr. Grodner

============= PAGE 34

1 to her. I’d ask that you quash his subpoena, please. Thank

2 you.

3 (background)

4 STATEMENT BY MR. MILLER AS TO MOTION TO QUASH

5 SUBPOENA FOR MS. HARTZOG TO APPEAR:

6 MR. MILLER: Judge, I-I don’t know what he

7 believes Ms. Hartzog would lend to this case and the-the

8 problem with the matter that it just becomes more and more

9 apparent to the Court is none of this has to do with the

10 case. All of this has to do with his position and

11 perceptions about me, personally, and as a lawyer. And as

12 the hearing goes on, we’ll get – we’ll flavor that for sure.

13 But you’ve seen, essentially, what his position is. He wants

14 to call me a liar. He wants to say I’m a liar. He wants to

15 present documents, including a document in which I say, “I

16 have not lied.” That’s his evidence. I told him I had not

17 lied. And, beyond that, he wants to quibble about whether

18 there is an oral statement to Ms. Hartzog or a written

19 statement to Ms. Hartzog, but nothing really about the case.

20 And as I’ve said to Your Honor, there’s no value that

21 Ms. Hartzog can bring to the case because, essentially, he’s

22 not entitled to any motion that he’s filed, as a matter of

23 law. It is clearly on its face a frivolous action and

24 matter. And I would say that’s another reason not to drag

25 Ms. Hartzog into the middle, but she has Counsel and they can

============= PAGE 35

1 decide that issue. I-I’m-I’m-I’m here to stand by everything

2 that I’ve said in e-mails; everything I’ve said to anybody

3 about the case; everything I’ve said to Mr. Grodner in any

4 way. But I-I don’t think that there’s any value in bringing

5 Judge Braddy into the case by subpoena. Initially, he didn’t

6 even show up for the date that he subpoenaed him and then

7 over the weekend, when nobody would know, he issues one of

8 his e-mails that he withdraws his subpoenas. So, we all show

9 up that morning; he doesn’t even come. He does go to the

10 Clerk’s Office and file his withdrawal that very morning, but

11 he doesn’t even come into the courtroom, where the people

12 that he subpoenaed were having a hearing that he caused. He

13 doesn’t even come here. And when you engage in that kind of

14 business, in his case, at his whim, when he does these

15 things, and Ms. Hartzog is the latest victim of his action

16 and his conduct. I’m still here willing to respond to any of

17 the claims that he has made with regard to the matter,

18 openly, candidly, with no problems. But I-I don’t – unless

19 you can get some foreshadowing of what he believes his

20 evidence with Ms. Hartzog is going to yield to this Court on

21 a Rule 59 motion, that is without authority - and-and, Judge,

22 I – as I said, I provided the cases. He has them. Davis v

23 Rizzo, it says in there clearly and concisely. And the

24 second case, Tetra Tech Tesoro, says it clearly and

25 concisely, and that one is even in the context of a summary

============= PAGE 36

1 judgment kind of motion. So, you-you really – I-I-I want him

2 to say what he wants to say about me, and I want him to have

3 all the time he wants to do that, and whatever the Court

4 wants to indulge with that is-is fine with me. I-I’m here to

5 do that. But all the collateral damage that he is doing by

6 his conduct, I hope you’ll address in the other motions that

7 I have filed, and that there is no basis for Ms. Hartzog to

8 have to endure this.

9 THE COURT: Mr. Grodner?

10 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

11 THE COURT: Would you like to respond?

12 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor. I think the most

13 efficient way to proceed is to – let me respond to both

14 witnesses I’d like to call. Now, Mr. Miller as a witness and

15 ---

16 THE COURT: Excuse me?

17 MR. GRODNER: I’d like to call Mr. Miller as a

18 witness. There’s an outstanding subpoena on him, as well,

19 for this hearing.

20 THE COURT: And what is he being called as a

21 witness for?

22 MR. GRODNER: For the same reason that Ms. Hartzog

23 is called related to what I told you: the communication that

24 he had with her regarding filing of the January 8th, 2019,

25 order.

============= PAGE 37

1 THE COURT: What’s the relevance, I guess?

2 MR. GRODNER: The relevance is what Your Honor

3 asked me to do. Your Honor asked me to provide evidence that

4 Mr. Miller has been lying. He is the witness. I want to ask

5 him – put him on the stand and prove to Your Honor that he

6 has been lying in those e-mails that I have presented to you

7 that are now in evidence.

8 MR. MILLER: Judge, he did – I think it’s the

9 third subpoena that he has sent to me that has been the

10 subject of an objection and a motion to quash. As Your Honor

11 knows, I’m not a party in these proceedings. I represent a

12 party in these proceedings. I’ve also presented a case to

13 the Court about subpoenas to litigants’ attorneys and tried

14 to compel them to produce items or to testify, and the Court

15 scrutinizes that very carefully to make sure that there is

16 some particularized relevance and necessity for that kind of

17 conduct. And in this case, as I understand it, he’s filed a

18 – a frivolous motion that has no basis in law. He’s had a

19 hearing on his motion to remove me that was denied after he

20 made all of his statements and now he wants to undo that

21 interlocutory order by his frivolous verified Rule 59 motion

22 that this Court would not have authority to entertain, but

23 for our indulgence of Mr. Grodner. And he wants to have me

24 testify in his claim that I’m a liar in which we’ve told him,

25 “Make your grievance, make your complaint to the State Bar

============= PAGE 38

1 and let them adjust the matter in the appropriate forum, not

2 in the context of a case that I’m not a party to.” And-and,

3 so, I have filed a motion to quash his subpoena to me in an

4 objection to that process.

5 THE COURT: Mr. Grodner.

6 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

7 THE COURT: You want to respond to that?

8 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor. I’d like to

9 testify under oath.

10 THE COURT: No, sir. My question is would you

11 like to respond to Counsel’s motion to quash the subpoena for

12 him to testify in this case?

13 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor. And the way I’d

14 like to proceed I’d like to first provide ---

15 THE COURT: I want you to address the rule of

16 order. It’s not a substantive issue. This is a procedural

17 issue.

18 MR. GRODNER: Yes, I’d like to respond.

19 THE COURT: Go ahead.

20 MR. GRODNER: Okay.

21 THE COURT: No, sir.

22 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

23 THE COURT: I want you to address the rule of

24 law.

25 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor.

============= PAGE 39

1 THE COURT: Not what you have written down. The

2 rule of law as it relates to the motion to quash.

3 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor.

4 THE COURT: You represent yourself.

5 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

6 THE COURT: So, you address that rule. That’s

7 what I want you to address. Specifically, that rule.

8 MR. GRODNER: And I understand as part of it, I

9 have the right to speak.

10 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir. The Court is

11 specifically directing that you address the rule that was

12 raised as far as the motion to quash the subpoena.

13 MR. GRODNER: Yes. So, I believe that these

14 motions to quash are improper because the subpoenas are very

15 specific and they relate to my overall claim that Mr. Miller

16 is providing false statements and these are ---

17 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

18 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

19 THE COURT: I’m not asking you to recite your

20 previous testimony. I’m asking you to address the rules as

21 it relates to subpoena – subpoenaing a non-witness or – or

22 the advocate.

23 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor. Yes, there is a

24 rule. This is in the rules of evidence and ---

25 THE COURT: I’m talking about the rules of civil

============= PAGE 40

1 procedure ---

2 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

3 THE COURT: --- not the rules of evidence.

4 MR. GRODNER: It’s part – I believe that this is

5 part of civil procedure. It’s Rule 8.6 – 8(c), I believe,

6 and Your Honor asked me to provide evidence.

7 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

8 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

9 THE COURT: I know what I asked you. I’m asking

10 you now to address that rule.

11 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor. And part of me

12 issuing subpoenas was providing evidence. Right?

13 THE COURT: I’m not answering questions for you,

14 sir. What I’m saying is address the rules that there was

15 subpoenaing – issuing a subpoena for a witness who was a non-

16 who was non-party.

17 MR. GRODNER: So, Ms. Hartzog is a public

18 official. She is – I-I’ll talk about this further.

19 Ms. Hartzog is a public official.

20 THE COURT: No, sir. I want you to address that

21 first.

22 MR. GRODNER: Mr. Miller?

23 THE COURT: Yeah, he just said you have

24 subpoenaed him ---

25 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

============= PAGE 41

1 THE COURT: --- as, I guess, is it Hunter

2 Grodner’s attorney. You have subpoenaed him to testify.

3 MR. GRODNER: Yes, but in the capacity of him

4 communicating with me.

5 THE COURT: Are you filing a complaint against

6 (inaudible)? Are you – you filing a complaint alleging that

7 Mr. Miller is not being truthful to the Court?

8 MR. GRODNER: And how is it related to the filing,

9 I think we talked about it.

10 THE COURT: Excuse me. I’m asking you: is that

11 what you – is that what this hearing is about? I don’t – I’m

12 not sure I understand what is going on. When you say Rule

13 59, I understand that.

14 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

15 THE COURT: Because (pause) in scheduling cases,

16 the clerks are the individuals to contact for scheduling

17 cases. That’s the practice of law when you schedule cases.

18 MR. GRODNER: Okay.

19 THE COURT: Check with the Clerk’s Office, find

20 out when there’s a court date, and you check with others in

21 the courthouse who may be with the trial court administrator

22 because of the scheduling process. Now, what is it about her

23 testimony that’s relevant to this Rule 59?

24 MR. GRODNER: Are we talking about Rule 59?

25 Because my understanding was we were talking about the

============= PAGE 42

1 (inaudible) for continuance and I have subpoenaed Ms. Hartzog

2 and Mr. Miller for those.

3 THE COURT: Well, when you – when I mention Rule

4 as it relates to the subpoenas, you went back to Ms. Har- is

5 it Ms. Hardwell (phonetic)?

6 MR. GRODNER: Hartford (phonetic). I - I don’t

7 (inaudible).

8 THE COURT: Is that a name?

9 MS. DAVIS: Hartzog, Your Honor, is the ---

10 THE COURT: Hartzog?

11 MR. GRODNER: Z-o-g. Yes, sir.

12 THE COURT: Oh, okay. Hart ---

13 MR. GRODNER: Hartzog.

14 THE COURT: Hartzog. Okay. I’m sorry. When

15 you had mentioned back to her, then I assumed that you were

16 turning back to Rule 59, and my question is how – what is the

17 relevance of her testimony as it relates to Rule 59?

18 MR. GRODNER: And how – I don’t understand the

19 question how Your Honor connected Ms. Hartzog to Rule 59

20 because I have ---

21 THE COURT: Well, you said you wanted a new

22 trial. Rule 59.

23 MR. GRODNER: Yes, but Ms. Hartzog was not even

24 involved in the case when I filed that motion.

25 THE COURT: Okay. So, wh- how is she – how’s

============= PAGE 43

1 the testimony relevant?

2 MR. GRODNER: That’s my question to Your Honor.

3 How did Your Honor manage to make the connection? Because I

4 don’t ---

5 THE COURT: Excuse me. You don’t ask me

6 questions.

7 MR. GRODNER: Okay.

8 THE COURT: What I’m trying to explain to you,

9 sir, is I don’t understand what you’re really seeking. I’m

10 trying to get clarification. What is Ms. Hartzog’s –

11 Hartzog’s relevance in either – in - in the subpoena motion

12 or any other motion? What’s her relevance? What’s her

13 testimony going to prove?

14 MR. GRODNER: To prove that Mr. Miller, after

15 recusal of Judge Braddy, continued to provide false

16 statements to public officials, like herself, and as a

17 result, has been prejudicial towards me. That because if

18 there was (inaudible) communication between Mr. Miller and

19 Ms. Hartzog, that was ex parte communication that was

20 prejudiced me and I wanted to ask her about that. That’s, in

21 fact, the question that I – it wasn’t really interrogatory.

22 I wanted to help Ms. Hartzog to know what I’m going to ask,

23 and the reason why I put the question in subpoena to deflect

24 Ms. Davis’ complaint that this is somehow oppressive, number

25 one, Ms. Hartzog works here. So, for her to come down is

============= PAGE 44

1 basically costless. Number two, to answer that question

2 takes her, maybe, a minute or so. Therefore, for her to do

3 this, it’s not oppressive and not costly. That’s why, in the

4 subpoena, I put a very specific question. And she’s a public

5 official. She can testify about public records requests that

6 she responded to.

7 THE COURT: And you say you want to – you want

8 to question her for how long?

9 MR. GRODNER: Like, no more than five minutes.

10 MS. DAVID: I-I can’t advise her to give

11 testimony about public records requests. I simply can’t do

12 that, Your Honor.

13 MR. GRODNER: Okay. So, where are we right now?

14 THE COURT: Well, right now, you have to explain

15 in legal terms - not perception, but under the rule - why

16 these people should be forced to testify.

17 MR. GRODNER: These people should be forced to

18 testify because on January 12th ---

19 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

20 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

21 THE COURT: Under the rules. Just explain to

22 me, pursuant to the rules that apply to this case ---

23 MR. GRODNER: Mm-hmm.

24 THE COURT: --- why they should be required to

25 testify.

============= PAGE 45

14 45

MR. GRODNER: Because Mr. Miller is the center of this mess so he is, obviously, the critical witness. I accuse him of lying. And Ms. Hartzog is, also, a recipient of the e-mails. So, the subpoenas were issued for both of them to testify about their communication. They’re the only witnesses.

THE COURT: What affect does it have on this case? That’s my question.

MR. GRODNER: The affect it has on this case is that, number one, in those statements that I presented, Mr. Miller lied to me, Ms. Davis, to Ms. Hartzog, and everybody who was a recipient of this e-mail. So, that’s big. That’s, I believe, is important. Number two, he lied about ex parte

communication, which is improper. And, also ---

15 THE COURT: When you say, “he lied about ex

16 parte communication,” specifically to whom and ---

17 MR. GRODNER: To Ms. Hartzog.

18 THE COURT: Regarding what?

19 MR. GRODNER: Regarding preparation and filing of

25 the 2000 – 8th of January 2019 order.

THE COURT: He communicated – you’re saying he communicated with the clerk about filing the order?

MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor. Yes. The statements that you have heard me present – now a part of evidence – whatever Mr. Miller wrote is false because he did

============= PAGE 46

1 have communication with Ms. Hartzog via e-mail.

2 THE COURT: You will need to address that issue

3 with the North Carolina State Bar. Now, as it relates to

4 Rule 59, it’s for a new trial. So, what is it that you’re

5 asking a new trial for?

6 MR. GRODNER: So, I’m going to ask ---

7 THE COURT: Excuse me. What are you asking a

8 new trial for, sir?

9 MR. GRODNER: What is the ruling?

10 THE COURT: I need to know – I don’t know. You

11 haven’t given me the information.

12 MR. GRODNER: Your Honor ---

13 THE COURT: Listen, sir. I’m not trying to be

14 rude, but that’s what I’m trying to tell you. When you come

15 to court and you ask for something, there is a legal ruling.

16 It’s not based on what one feels, what one thinks should be.

17 It’s what the rules say. My question is: you’re asking for

18 a new trial. A new trial as to what?

19 MR. GRODNER: To the best of my understanding, we

20 are not there yet. To the best of my understanding, we are

21 still ---

22 THE COURT: Yes, that’s the rule that you filed,

23 sir. Rule 59.

24 MR. GRODNER: No, Your Honor. You asked me

25 earlier what are the two issues that are pending. Rule 59

============= PAGE 47

1 motion filed in December and a request for continuance that,

2 to the best of my - my understanding, we’re still discussing.

3 There are items in the request for continuance that I have

4 not reached yet and I’d like to proceed with it.

5 THE COURT: Well, why did you raise this other

6 rule? These other issues? Okay. Let’s go. Make the motion

7 to continue.

8 MR. GRODNER: So ---

9 THE COURT: Make your motion to continue. You

10 want to make your motion to continue?

11 MR. GRODNER: Yes. Yes, Your Honor. Yes.

12 THE COURT: Go right ahead. Make your motion.

13 MR. GRODNER: I’ve already made it. It’s filed.

14 So, I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do. It’s – it’s

15 outstanding. We are discussing it, to the best of my

16 understanding, right now.

17 THE COURT: Excuse me. I want you to put on the

18 record ---

19 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

20 THE COURT: --- what your request for the

21 continuance is. Why you’re requesting a continuance.

22 MR. GRODNER: Okay. Let me ask: did Your Honor

23 come here himself with the file at all?

24 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir. My question is:

25 what is your basis – reason for a request for continuance?

============= PAGE 48

1 And to answer your question, yes. And on the file, it has

2 notice of appeal, which I will address in a few minutes. Go

3 ahead.

4 (background)

5 MR. GRODNER: So, on February 13th, 2019, at 8:27

6 a.m., I had filed request for continuance in which I stated,

7 “Defendant objects a hearing – any hearing involving Jeffrey

8 L. Miller in any kind of capacity by the witness because

9 starting with Cannon v Miller, 1983, which has been attached,

10 and resulting in Judge Braddy’s removal at order on the 8th

11 of January 2019, he continues to willfully and knowingly lie

12 to court officials and the Court accepts Mr. Miller’s lies as

13 the truth.” It’s in the quotes – it’s a quote from the order

14 to recuse Judge Braddy which, to the best of my

15 understanding, Judge Teague found as good reason to recuse

16 Judge Braddy because he, at least, took seriously this

17 accusation I’ve made. He cited this in the order. All of

18 which prejudice against the plaintiff, myself, and I actually

19 asked for a hearing prior to this one. To the best of my

20 understanding, Pitt County local rules allow this, that we

21 have a prehearing on a request for continuance; however, I

22 have received absolutely no response whatsoever to this. I

23 have not even received, I guess, response from Your Honor

24 about my problem to be here on time, even though I’ve made

25 multiple requests.

============= PAGE 49

1 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir. Let me inform you I

2 do not have any ex parte communications with any parties in

3 any actions. I don’t read it. I don’t address it. When I

4 see that there’s some reference to a case, I simply forward

5 it to my trial court coordinator and let my trial court

6 coordinator contact those parties that are involved. But I

7 do not read it and I don’t address it because that’s ex parte

8 communications, and I should not be engaged in that and I

9 don’t. So, you may proceed, sir.

10 MR. GRODNER: To clarify the statement Your Honor

11 just made, I have not made any ex parte communication with

12 Your Honor. I presented an e-mail that was copied to Ms.

13 Davis and Mr. Miller. That e-mail is part of the file, it

14 has been filed, and I’d like to ask this Court if Your Honor

15 did forward that e-mail to your case coordinator and whether

16 that case coordinator was, at least, attempting to contact me

17 because I have not received any message whatsoever.

18 THE COURT: I don’t know. I’m just saying I

19 received – there was a stack of papers about a request for

20 continuance, and I simply told her, “I’m not going to review

21 this because I don’t know who the parties are and that needs

22 to be done in open court with all parties present and on the

23 record.”

24 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor, and I requested a

25 short hearing prior to that hearing and ---

============= PAGE 50

1 THE COURT: No. 50

2 MR. GRODNER: --- pursuant to ---

3 THE COURT: I was just assigned for this case –

4 for these cases today here, so it’s not as if Judge Braddy

5 requested an out of dis- out of district judge that doesn’t

6 know these parties. I don’t know the attorneys. I don’t

7 know you. But what I’m saying is we’re not here every day.

8 We’re here on specific, limited occasions. Sometimes it

9 might be me; sometimes it might be any one of another judge

10 we have in our district or it may be from a different

11 district. It depends on who’s available or who has – who can

12 come at that specific date. So, any of those issues would be

13 handled through the trial court coordinator and, again, if

14 the parties want to write their letter collectively, or the

15 attorneys and parties involved – everyone’s notified - and I

16 get letters, then, I’ll address that but without that, I

17 don’t make any comment or acknowledge it because that leaves

18 the situation on a level playing field without notice of

19 what’s going on on either side. That’s my policy.

20 MR. GRODNER: Okay. So, I ---

21 THE COURT: So, now you can – you can proceed

22 with your motion to continue.

23 MR. GRODNER: Okay. So, if I can respond to Your

24 - what Your Honor said, I, again, have not received any

25 notification from a case coordinator who helps you, and I

============= PAGE 51

1 also want to put on the record that the local rules of the

2 County do provide for parties who object to a notice

3 appearing to file a case for continuance. This is – these

4 are the local rules.

5 THE COURT: Right.

6 MR. GRODNER: And I have done that and that was --

7 -

8 THE COURT: And then that notice is to be heard

9 in court, on the record.

10 MR. GRODNER: Yes, and – well ---

11 THE COURT: Absent consent by the other parties.

12 MR. GRODNER: And where does it say in the rules,

13 Your Honor?

14 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir. I’m not in this –

15 I’m not in Pitt County. I’m in another county.

16 MR. GRODNER: But I think the case is Pitt County,

17 so ---

18 THE COURT: I know the case is Pitt County but,

19 see, we have the judicial code of conduct and ethics.

20 MR. GRODNER: I know.

21 THE COURT: And, maybe, you would want to read

22 that because we have a higher standard as to – lawyers can

23 communicate between themselves. They can file notices and

24 all of that, but they do not communicate with us ex parte

25 except as authorized by statute. Now, sir, you may go ahead

============= PAGE 52

1 and do your motion.

2 MR. GRODNER: So, in my motion, one of the

3 statements I made was that Mr. Miller (inaudible) resulted in

4 Judge Braddy’s removal; that he continues to willfully and

5 knowingly lie to the court officials. I have, earlier on,

6 provided evidence of the e-mails that were willfully and

7 knowingly sent to me, Ms. Davis, and everybody in the

8 courthouse. I subpoenaed Ms. Hartzog because she is –

9 furthermore, Mr. Miller is, obviously, the recipient – sent

10 her those e-mails, so that’s why he was subpoenaed. But,

11 also, Ms. Hartzog was subpoenaed because she’s a public

12 official. I do have public record request e-mails where

13 Mr. Miller did receive an e-mail from Ms. Hartzog where she –

14 actually, let me tell you this.

15 (background)

16 THE COURT: Do you have copies for Counsel

17 (inaudible)?

18 MR. GRODNER: Yes - yes, I do, Your Honor. Yes, I

19 do, Your Honor.

20 (background)

21 MR. GRODNER: Okay. So, that’s going to be

22 Exhibit 6.

23 THE COURT: Hold on just a minute. Give them an

24 opportunity to review it.

25 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor.

============= PAGE 53

4 first.

8 MR. MILLER: Judge, I already have an Exhibit 6. MR. GRODNER: Exhibit 7. I’m sorry. Yes. I --- THE COURT: Hold on. Let Counsel review it

MR. GRODNER: Yes.

(background)

THE COURT: Any objection?

MS. DAVIS: I’m sorry, Your Honor. Objection to

9 it being entered into evidence?

10 THE COURT: Yes.

11 MS. DAVIS: Oh, no objection, Your Honor. Thank

12 you.

13 THE COURT: All right, sir.

14 MR. GRODNER: So ---

15 THE COURT: If you’ll hand it to – copies –

16 copies to the bailiff.

17 DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT 7, E-MAIL DATED JANUARY 8,

18 2019, ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE

19 MR. GRODNER: So, on January 8th, 2019, at 9:44

20 a.m., Ms. Hartzog, without informing me, sent e-mail to Mr.

21 Miller and Ms. Worthington (phonetic) stating, “Judge Teague

22 does not need your written facts. He got a copy of the CD.

23 Do you want to take a look at the order before it is mailed –

24 filed and mailed out?” Then, my public records request also

25 revealed an e-mail that Ms. Hartzog sent to Judge Teague,

============= PAGE 54

1 where she says, “E-mail from Jeff,” or, so, let me just

2 proceed one at a time. Here is – that’s going to be Exhibit

3 – here’s the (inaudible). And-and Counsel can review this,

4 if they’d like to.

5 (background)

6 MS. DAVIS: (whispers) Excuse me.

7 (background)

8 THE COURT: Any objection?

9 MR. MILLER: No, Judge.

10 MS. DAVIS: No, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: You may (inaudible).

12 DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT 8, E-MAIL, ADMITTED INTO

13 EVIDENCE

14 MR. GRODNER: Thank you. So, there’s another e-

15 mail from Ms. Hartzog to Judge Teague. I understand this is

16 the official e-mail address from Judge Teague, where he has

17 marked, “NC Courts dot o-r-g,” and she says, “E-mail from

18 Jeff on Grodner,” and this is forwarded to – below there is a

19 forwarded e-mail messages which says, “Jeff Miller mailed to

20 Jeff at Miller and Audino dot com.” This is from and then it

21 says, “To Megan dot L dot Hartzog at NC dot org dot NC Courts

22 dot o-r-g.” I do not have that original e-mail. I have to

23 admit public records request that I’ve made twice have

24 revealed that it doesn’t exist. It is my contention that

25 Ms. Hartzog, as part of my public records request of her, she

============= PAGE 55

1 does – did delete it intentionally to conceal that

2 information.

3 THE COURT: Do you have any evidence to support

4 that?

5 MR. GRODNER: I don’t. This is my – this is what

6 I wanted to ask her. This is exactly why I wanted to have

7 her testify. Because there is an e-mail that I know exists

8 and it – she was the only one that could have deleted this.

9 But, basically, in that e-mail ---

10 THE COURT: Can you substantiate that claim,

11 sir?

12 MR. GRODNER: Did – I can only say ---

13 THE COURT: I’m just asking you: can you

14 substantiate that claim?

15 MR. GRODNER: I can substantiate it by the fact

16 that I’ve made two public records requests.

17 THE COURT: No, my question is: simply because

18 you made the requests does not substantiate the claim that

19 Ms. Hartzog deleted it. Those are serious allegations.

20 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: I don’t know her. I don’t know

22 anything about her. I wouldn’t know if she walked in the

23 courtroom right now.

24 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: But those are serious allegations.

============= PAGE 56

1 That’s why I ask if you have anything – any evidence. Not

2 statements, but evidence.

3 MR. GRODNER: The ev- the evidence is that when I

4 ask her for public records requests, Ms. Hartzog did not send

5 me those e-mails, meaning that she was deceitful to me. The

6 moment ---

7 THE COURT: No, sir. That’s not what you said.

8 Your statement was that she “deleted the e-mail.” That’s why

9 I was asking you: do you have any evidence to substantiate

10 your claim.

11 MR. GRODNER: Your Honor, my statement was my

12 contention. I am – I don’t have proof that she did that.

13 THE COURT: Okay, okay, okay. Go ahead. Go

14 ahead.

15 MR. GRODNER: So, given that that e-mail has been

16 received by Ms. Hartzog, it says, “No,” this is from

17 Mr. Miller to Ms. Hartzog, “No, if he does not need me to

18 prepare a proposed order and does not need me to submit any

19 proposed findings, then I would copy Grodner, even though he

20 defaulted and did not appear, then I think the best thing to

21 do is simply send it to us in the normal course. Thanks,

22 Megan.”

23 THE COURT: All right. Now, as it relates, was

24 there a request for interrogatories?

25 MS. DAVIS: There was a request for

============= PAGE 57

1 interrogatories.

2 THE COURT: And was there a motion to quash that

3 request?

4 MS. DAVIS: There is, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: All right. Now, the motion to quash

6 the interrogatories is allowed pursuant to Rule 26. Rule

7 1(a), Rule 26. Now, as it relates to your request for a new

8 trial – your request for a continuance, rather, what does Ms.

9 Hartzog have to do with your request for a continuance? Or

10 is this in conjunction with your request?

11 MR. GRODNER: All right. Let me go back and say

12 in my request for continuance, I said that Mr. Miller

13 continues to willfully and knowingly lie to court officials

14 and the Court accepts Mr. Miller’s lies as the truth.

15 Mr. Miller, just today, told you he stands by every single e-

16 mail that he sent; that I recited; that he did not have any

17 communication with Ms. Hartzog. This is your proof that he

18 was lying to you right now, and it is my understanding that

19 Your Honor is willing to believe his lies and proceed with

20 this hearing even though ---

21 THE COURT: Listen. Where did you get that

22 perception.

23 MR. GRODNER: This is my contention that ---

24 THE COURT: Well, it sounds like that’s your

25 contention of the whole system, sir.

============= PAGE 58

1 MR. GRODNER: No.

2 THE COURT: Then why did you say that? Because

3 you have no basis for making that statement at all. I’m

4 simply asking you questions, and if you don’t answer them

5 according to what the law requires, that doesn’t imply

6 anything. I’m just asking you to provide to this Court what

7 is sufficient in your case. That’s all I’m asking. I don’t

8 know anybody here. I don’t have a dog in this fight. I know

9 nobody. I don’t know any of these - these attorneys.

10 MR. GRODNER: Okay.

11 THE COURT: They just introduced themselves

12 along with you.

13 MR. GRODNER: Mm-hmm.

14 THE COURT: I don’t know these people. So, I’m

15 here to make a decision based on what facts on what the law

16 is. I don’t do any preferential treatment.

17 MR. GRODNER: So ---

18 THE COURT: So, that’s an assumption that-that-

19 that you have taken that’s not accurate, and I just want the

20 record to reflect that. Go ahead, sir.

21 MR. GRODNER: So, I’d like to state that I have

22 proven beyond any doubt that Mr. Miller has lied in the e-

23 mails that he sent me, to Ms. Davis, and Ms. Hartzog.

24 Ms. Hartzog, also, has been dishonest to me and my position

25 is she is – she didn’t do it, I believe, to deceive me. I

============= PAGE 59

1 believe that she has done it upon urging from Mr. Miller

2 because you saw those e-mails that he sent immediately, he

3 almost suggested what Ms. Hartzog is supposed to do. He was

4 writing that he told her, kind of implying, that, maybe, she

5 should not send any – tell her that, to me, that she had any

6 e-mails. And, in fact, later on, when she responded to my

7 public records request, she did not provide me those e-mails.

8 I have made this public records request and those did not

9 show up and Ms. Hartzog has not provided it. That’s why I

10 wanted to ask her to testify. To, basically, be a witness

11 and in evidence that Mr. Miller lied.

12 THE COURT: Well, (inaudible)

13 MS. DAVIS: May I be heard briefly? Your Honor,

14 public records requests need to be made through AOC, through

15 Jonathan Harris, our General Counsel. It is impossible to

16 delete an e-mail. AOC is always going to have retained those

17 e-mails. And so, if those records – public records requests

18 are made of AOC, AOC will comply with the law.

19 THE COURT: Mr. Grodner.

20 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: Any response to Counsel’s statement?

22 MR. GRODNER: Yes, yes. Perfect. I mean, it’s a

23 wonderful segue. So ---

24 THE COURT: Excuse me.

25 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

============= PAGE 60

1 THE COURT: That didn’t answer the Court’s

2 question, sir. Counsel indicated that if you’d like to get

3 public records from any State agency, that you would contact

4 the Office of the Administrative of Courts and ---

5 MR. GRODNER: I did. Yes, Your Honor. And this

6 is the proof. This is – I can prove it as Exhibit 9. On

7 January 12th of 2019, at 7:07 a.m., I have made such requests

8 and you can pass them to ---

9 MS. DAVIS: The point is, it is improper to send

10 these requests to individuals throughout the court system.

11 They need to go through our General Counsel, John Harris.

12 MR. GRODNER: Let me ---

13 MR. MILLER: Judge, I-I-I know that I received an

14 e-mail, and I thought it was from Ms. Davis, that told him

15 how to make a public records request, as well, when he

16 started down this road.

17 THE COURT: Now, hold on. Hold on, Mr. Grodner.

18 Sir?

19 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

20 THE COURT: Now, I know this may sound harsh,

21 but I’m not here for a fishing expedition. I am here to hear

22 some motions. Your motion to continue is that you think Mr.

23 Miller is being (inaudible) to the Court and that he

24 shouldn’t be involved in the case.

25 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor.

============= PAGE 61

1 THE COURT: Well, other than what you’ve alleged

2 that Ms. Hartzog would say and if she would say that - that

3 she’s given you these e-mails - what bearing has that got on

4 the issues of these case – this case?

5 MR. GRODNER: Oh, well, it’s obvious, Your Honor.

6 Mr. Miller lied to Your Honor just a few minutes ago. And

7 Your Honor did not stop him, didn’t say, “Please, Mr. Miller,

8 tell the truth.” And Your Honor didn’t try to verify whether

9 he was telling the truth.

10 THE COURT: Excuse me. I’m not here to try a

11 case, sir. That’s not my job. I’m not here to – to assist

12 in a case. I only ask for clarification.

13 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

14 THE COURT: So, whatever substance you want to

15 make, that’s on you, but the record is clear. I’m not here

16 for preference. I’m not here to assist. I’m trying to get

17 to the bottom of this matter, and I’ve asked you specific

18 questions which you do not answer. You go – excuse me. You

19 tend to want to respond with what you have prepared to say,

20 and it’s okay for you to make your statements, but when the

21 Court asks you for a specific answer, I’m looking for a

22 specific response to that case. And we cannot come in here

23 and just simply talk about what you feel should happen or

24 what you think should happen. It’s what the rules address.

25 And that’s why when I ask you a question about what a

============= PAGE 62

1 specific rule says, you have not responded based on that

2 rule. You have started talking about other things. And I’m

3 just trying to get you acclimated as to where you need to be

4 and what needs to be presented to this Court, so that the

5 Court will have a clear understanding. You want a Rule 59

6 motion, motion to continue. Your motion continuance says

7 that you feel that Mr. Miller’s lying – or is not being

8 truthful to the Court.

9 MR. GRODNER: Mm-hmm.

10 THE COURT: Well, if you feel that Mr. Miller’s

11 statements to any prior actions have been false and

12 misleading such that it creates an injustice, then you need

13 to go to the State Bar. The State Bar will do a separate

14 investigation. It’s not our – it’s not our – as a judicial

15 official, that is not what we do. Again, if you feel that

16 that is an issue, then notify North Carolina State Bar and

17 let the State Bar do an investigation. That would assist the

18 Court in making a determination as to whether or not there’s

19 a basis. You understand what I mean?

20 MR. GRODNER: I-I will rephrase when Your Honor is

21 done. Yes, I will rephrase and I try to tell ---

22 THE COURT: No, I don’t want you to tell me

23 anything. I just want you to answer my question. Do you

24 understand what I just said about referring this matter to

25 the State Bar, if that’s what your contentions are.

============= PAGE 63

2 63

MR. GRODNER: And I disagree. Your Honor has jurisdiction over attorneys. Your Honor can ---

3 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

4 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

5 THE COURT: I know my job. I’m not trying to be

6 rude, but I don’t need you to tell me my job.

7 MR. GRODNER: Mm-hmm.

8 THE COURT: What I’m trying to tell you is the

9 State of North Carolina has a select body. It’s called the

10 North Carolina State Bar.

11 MR. GRODNER: Mm-hmm.

12 THE COURT: And when there are grievances

13 against attorneys, they are filed with the State Bar and the

14 State Bar does an investigation. Judges do not do

15 investigations. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. You

16 understand what I mean now?

17 MR. GRODNER: And I believe Your Honor is wrong.

18 THE COURT: Well, you can believe what you want,

19 but that’s the way - that’s the way it is.

20 MR. GRODNER: Can I ---

21 THE COURT: We don’t – I’m not out here to do

22 investigations, sir. We don’t conduct investigations based

23 on allegations of attorneys. Those matters are referred to

24 the State Bar and the State Bar does the investigation.

25 That’s ---

============= PAGE 64

1 MR. GRODNER: And I want to submit to Your Honor

2 that Your Honor is misguided in believing that the Bar can

3 remove attorney from a case. Only a judge ---

4 THE COURT: Well, listen ---

5 MR. GRODNER: --- can remove attorney from a case.

6 THE COURT: Listen. No, sir. I know what I’m

7 authorized to do. Now, Judge Braddy has already denied your

8 motion to remove and you filed for a new trial. Was that a

9 new trial based on Judge Braddy’s motion? Is that a new

10 hearing on that?

11 MR. GRODNER: I would ask Your Honor that we

12 discuss one issue at a time. I’m currently saying that Your

13 Honor is misguided in believing that Your Honor ---

14 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

15 MR. GRODNER: Mm-hmm.

16 RULING BY THE COURT AS TO REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE:

17 THE COURT: Okay, then. You feel I’m misguided

18 and, so, we’re going to go ahead. I-I’ve been trying for the

19 last hour and some time to make sure we got to the bottom of

20 this, but your – your motion to continue is denied. Now,

21 anything else, sir?

22 MR. GRODNER: I’d like to just put it on the

23 record, does Your Honor make a ruling on my motion to

24 continue even though I have not finished my argument?

25 THE COURT: Sir, I have asked you specific

============= PAGE 65

1 questions; you have not addressed the Court properly; and you

2 continue to respond by reading those materials that you have

3 decided to read and not respond to the specific questions

4 that the Court has asked. And, so, based upon that and not

5 knowing what you may say – what stage you may say you’re at

6 next, the Court’s made a decision that the con- motion to

7 continue is denied. Now, whatever evidence you want to

8 present, you may present at this time.

9 MR. GRODNER: Okay. (inaudible) matter, this is

10 Exhibit, I believe, 9. This is from Ms. Nancy Ray

11 (phonetic), who, in the end, was helping Ms. Hartzog to

12 respond to my public records request. Let – let’s let

13 Counsel review it, I suppose.

14 THE COURT: Excuse me. We’re now proceeding

15 with the Rule 59 motion.

16 DISCUSSION AS TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL:

17 MR. GRODNER: Okay.

18 THE COURT: The motion for a new trial.

19 MR. GRODNER: So, can I make a-a-a statement

20 related to this denial of ---

21 THE COURT: You can appeal it, sir. You can

22 appeal it.

23 MR. GRODNER: So, if I can just for the record

24 make a statement that this (inaudible) that this Court is

25 aware that Mr. Miller is lying and ---

============= PAGE 66

1 THE COURT: No, sir, you can’t make that

2 statement because you cannot speak for the Court. So you

3 cannot make that statement.

4 MR. GRODNER: I have presented evidence that Mr.

5 Miller is lying and this Court is allowing the hearing to

6 proceed even with the evidence of Mr. Lit – Wit – Miller ---

7 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir. You - you can’t

8 make that statement. You can only understand that this Court

9 has denied your motion to continue and you can appeal it to

10 the North Carolina Court of Appeals. And we’re now

11 proceeding with Rule 59 motion. Let’s proceed.

12 (background)

13 MR. GRODNER: All right. I just – there’s so many

14 things. If Your Honor would give me just a minute.

15 THE COURT: Go right ahead, sir.

16 MR. GRODNER: I did have my Rule 59 motion and,

17 for some reason, I cannot locate it.

18 MR. MILLER: Judge, for Your Honor, it’s behind

19 tab number five in the notebook that I handed up, and it’s in

20 the materials that I gave Mr. Grodner, as well.

21 (background)

22 MR. GRODNER: All right. So, on December 27th ---

23 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.

24 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

25 THE COURT: Come back over - you’re still under

============= PAGE 67

1 oath.

5 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you need any documents? MR. GRODNER: I may, but ---

THE COURT: Whatever documents you need, you can

6 bring them up with you now.

7 MR. GRODNER: All right.

8 (background)

9 MS. DAVIS: Would Your Honor allow me to step

10 down the hall for just a minute while he’s getting ready?

11 THE COURT: Yes.

12 MS. DAVIS: Thank you.

13 (background)

14 MR. GRODNER: (whispers) I think that’s going to

15 be it.

16 (background)

17 MR. GRODNER: I’m sorry. Without a document, I

18 think. Can I get a count of the exhibits? At what number

19 are we, so I can keep track of this.

20 THE COURT: The last I have is number nine.

21 MR. GRODNER: Number nine.

22 MR. MILLER: Judge, I have a number 10, which is

23 ---

24 THE COURT: I didn’t get a – I didn’t receive a

25 copy of number 10.

============= PAGE 68

1 (background)

2 MR. MILLER: I’m sorry, Judge. I – that’s -

3 that was number one, not number 10.

4 THE COURT: Okay.

5 MR. MILLER: So, my last is nine.

6 (background)

7 MR. GRODNER: So, number nine or number 10?

8 (background)

9 THE COURT: (inaudible) a copy of (inaudible)

10 statements?

11 MR. GRODNER: Your Honor, again, if you could tell

12 me what you expect of me right now. What am I supposed to do

13 right now?

14 THE COURT: I can’t tell you what to do, but you

15 are now addressing Rule 59, motion for a new trial.

16 MR. GRODNER: Yes, Your Honor. And before we

17 proceed, I want to mention that there is, to the best of my

18 understanding, there is no reason for Ms. Davis to be here.

19 She was here only to represent Ms. Hartzog and the subpoena

20 for ---

21 THE COURT: Sir.

22 MR. GRODNER: --- motion to continue, and that’s

23 my position. Your Honor makes the decision what to do.

24 THE COURT: If she wants to leave, she can

25 leave. But, right now ---

============= PAGE 69

1 MR. GRODNER: Okay.

2 THE COURT: --- you need to present your case.

3 MR. GRODNER: Okay.

4 THE COURT: Do you wish to be excused?

5 MS. DAVIS: Would Your Honor like me to

6 (inaudible) with an order ---

7 THE COURT: Yes.

8 MS. DAVIS: --- about an issue to quash. Okay.

9 THE COURT: Okay. Let Mr. Grodner receive the

10 order, please.

11 MS. DAVIS: I will.

12 (background)

13 MR. GRODNER: Are there any findings of fact?

14 THE COURT: Excuse me?

15 MR. GRODNER: The order should have findings of

16 fact. What is the finding of fact?

17 THE COURT: That her testimony would not affect

18 the outcome of the merits of the case.

19 MR. GRODNER: It’s not in the order at all. And

20 if I’m supposed to appeal ---

21 THE COURT: Excuse me.

22 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

23 THE COURT: Counselor, if you’ll take care of

24 that, please?

25 MS. DAVIS: Yes, sir. I’m happy to add that.

============= PAGE 70

1 THE COURT: Okay. Now, you may present your

2 evidence, sir. You may proceed.

3 MR. GRODNER: So, we’re done with this order?

4 Your Honor accepts it as is?

5 MS. DAVIS: May I take it back, sir? Thank you.

6 THE COURT: Listen, Mr. Grodner.

7 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

8 THE COURT: Let me explain this to you.

9 MR. GRODNER: Excuse me, Your Honor?

10 THE COURT: Let me explain this to you.

11 MR. GRODNER: Yes.

12 THE COURT: We all have specific roles. Your

13 job is to take care of your case. Go ahead. Now, Rule 59.

14 You may proceed.

15 [END OF TRANSCRIPT]

Divorce Blog

Statcounter - visit to the page

Pages visited times.

Thursday, March 07, 2019

court hearing: audio excerpt Pitt DC05 Date: 20190307 time:12 31 11 to 12 36 52

court hearing: 3/7/19 part 2, transcript (version 4/9/19)

court hearing: Jeffrey L. Miller is confronted with evidence of him lying and lies about it again

court hearing: 3/7/19 part 1, transcript (version 3/15/19)

StatCounter

Total Pageviews