- see copy converted below by MS Word.
===== Attached to email
https://grodnermiller.blogspot.com/2019/03/grdner-order-for-judge-hardison.html
From: Jeff Miller <jeff@millerandaudino.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 7:23 PM
Subject: Grdner Order for Judge Hardison
To: Hartzog, Megan L. <Megan.L.Hartzog@nccourts.org>, Brown, Kay <Kay.A.Brown@nccourts.org>
Cc: <Sandra@millerandaudino.com>, Andrew Grodner <agrodnercase@gmail.com>, Anna M. Davis <amdavis@ncdoj.gov>
Date: Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 7:23 PM
Subject: Grdner Order for Judge Hardison
To: Hartzog, Megan L. <Megan.L.Hartzog@nccourts.org>, Brown, Kay <Kay.A.Brown@nccourts.org>
Cc: <Sandra@millerandaudino.com>, Andrew Grodner <agrodnercase@gmail.com>, Anna M. Davis <amdavis@ncdoj.gov>
Attached is the proposed Order for Judge Hardison's signature based on his ruling on 7 March 2019. I will note the following:
1. Mr. Grodner agreed at the hearing to receive email, so I am sending a copy of the proposed Order to him by email today, Sunday, 10 March 2019.
2. I have not agreed or consented to receive any email communication from Mr. Grodner. Any belief he may have had that there was some authority for him to email me against my wishes was dismissed by Judge Hardison on 7 March 2019. Judge Hardison told him directly, and ordered, that he shall not communicate with me by email. If he has a response, he is subject to a gatekeeping order which requires an attorney's certification. In any event, he should not communicate with me by any means other than in a mailing through the US Mail.
3. Let me know if you or Judge Hardison have any questions.
Best regards,
jeff
1. Mr. Grodner agreed at the hearing to receive email, so I am sending a copy of the proposed Order to him by email today, Sunday, 10 March 2019.
2. I have not agreed or consented to receive any email communication from Mr. Grodner. Any belief he may have had that there was some authority for him to email me against my wishes was dismissed by Judge Hardison on 7 March 2019. Judge Hardison told him directly, and ordered, that he shall not communicate with me by email. If he has a response, he is subject to a gatekeeping order which requires an attorney's certification. In any event, he should not communicate with me by any means other than in a mailing through the US Mail.
3. Let me know if you or Judge Hardison have any questions.
Best regards,
jeff
-- Jeffrey L. Miller Miller & Audino, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law 2510 East Tenth Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 Telephone: (252) 364-8929 Facsimile: (252) 364-8932 jeff@millerandaudino.com
=================================================================
===== COPY OF THE PROPOSED ORDER CONVERTED BY MS. WORD ==========
=================================================================
FILE NO. 13-CvD-398
|
|
NORTH CAROLINA
|
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
|
PITT COUNTY
|
DISTRICT COURT DIVISION
|
HUNTER GRODNER (SUMMERLIN), )
)
Plaintiff )
) vs. )
) ORDER
)
)
ANDRZEJ (ANDREW) GRODNER, )
)
)
Defendant )
THIS CAUSE came before the undersigned District Court
Judge, assigned to hear this matter, at the 7 March 2019 Family Court session
of the Pitt County District Court; and having reviewed the record and taken
judicial notice of the prior Orders entered in this cause, received evidence
and statements, and heard the arguments on behalf of the parties, the Court
makes the following entries:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
The undersigned has been specially assigned to
hear this matter based on an email and statements of the Defendant which
resulted in the recusal of the assigned Pitt County Judge. The undersigned came
into this court this day without knowledge of, or prior relationship of any
kind with, the parties or the attorneys who appeared in this matter.
2.
The Plaintiff did not appear. She was
represented by her attorney of record, Jeffrey L. Miller, of the Pitt County
Bar. Based on the record, he has been the Plaintiff’s attorney since the
commencement of this action. The Defendant appeared and represented himself.
Anna M. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf of a court
administrator and state employee, Megan Hartzog, who had been subpoenaed by the
Defendant.
3.
This matter is properly before the Court for
hearing on Defendant’s announced Motion and Request to Continue, and his “Verified Motion for a New
Trial on Motion For Summary Judgement [sic] To Remove Opposing Counsel (filed
27 December 2018),” as well as the Plaintiff’s “Motion to Modify and Limit
Plaintiff’s Communications (filed 28 November 2018),” “Objection, Motion to
Strike, Motion to Summarily Deny and Dismiss, Motion for Attorney Fees and
Sanctions, Motion for Pre-filing Restraint and Gatekeeper Order (filed 11
January 2019),” and “Objection, Motion to Quash, Motion for Attorney Fees
(filed 28 February 2019).”
4.
The Plaintiff, Hunter Summerlin, is a resident
of Nash County, North Carolina.
5.
The Defendant, Andrew Grodner is a resident of
Pitt County, North Carolina. He is an economics professor at East Carolina
University.
6.
The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on 12
June 2010, separated on 13 February 2013, and were divorced on 15 May 2014 in
Pitt County file #14-CVD-699.
7.
There was one (1) child born of the parties’
marriage, namely: LUCAS H. GRODNER, born 3 August 2011.
8.
Pursuant to an Order entered on 9 January 2015,
which contained numerous substantive findings of fact, the Plaintiff was
granted primary physical custody of the parties’ minor child and final
decision-making authority, subject to a specified schedule for the Defendant’s
secondary custody and visitation, and Defendant was required to provide child
support for the parties’ child.
9.
The 9 January 2015 Order made findings, relevant
to this hearing, of some significant behavioral and conduct issues on the part
of the Defendant during his marriage to Plaintiff, namely: He distrusted and
disbelieved his wife to such an extent that he remained away from home for
lengthy periods and had angry outbursts which included pounding his head into a
wall of the marital home with enough force to cause a hole in the wall; he
demanded Plaintiff make journal entries in a diary as dictated by him; he
installed video cameras to observe and surveil the Plaintiff and the minor
child while he was away; he isolated himself and the parties’ child; Defendant
was dishonest and not truthful at times it served his purposes; he had gambling
and pornography issues; he blocked Plaintiff’s phone calls; and, he had fits of
rage. He was controlling, distrustful, dishonest, and manipulative.
10.
On 30 January 2015, Defendant’s then attorney of
record, Teresa D. Bryant, filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Relief
concerning the 9 January 2015 Order. The
motion sought to have this Court reconsider the portion of its Order granting
plaintiff-mother final decision-making authority.
11.
On 4 February 2015, Defendant’s attorney, Teresa
D. Bryant, filed a Motion
to Withdraw as
Defendant’s counsel. Defendant objected
to her withdrawal.
12.
On 11 February 2015, Larry Economos, attorney at
law, filed a Limited Notice of Appearance as attorney for the Defendant. The notice indicated Mr. Economos was
appearing on behalf of the Defendant in “post-judgment matters subsequent to
the entry of the January 19, 2015 custody order in this cause, including but
not limited to the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration and Relief, but
excluding representing Defendant in regard to Plaintiff’s reserved attorney’s
fees issue.” Mr. Economos did not appear
and participate in any court matters and he did not file any documents on
behalf of the defendant. Upon his request, he was subsequently allowed to
withdraw as counsel for Defendant.
13.
On 19 February 2015, this Court conducted a
hearing on the motion of the Defendant’s attorney, Teresa D. Bryant, requesting
that she be permitted to withdraw as Defendant’s attorney in this matter. Defendant and Plaintiff’s attorney were
present and participated in the hearing.
Defendant did not desire for his attorney to withdraw. Ms. Bryant
asserted that the Defendant was uncooperative and made it difficult for her to
represent him. Defendant was complimentary of Ms. Bryant’s representation and
her services, and he agreed to abide by certain conditions if Ms. Bryant would
not withdraw. Defendant and Ms. Bryant
made an agreement in open court, and the Honorable W. Brian Desoto entered an
Order which relieved Ms. Bryant of any further responsibility or duty with
regards to this case except for pending equitable distribution issues and
trial. Defendant was ordered to
cooperate fully with Ms. Bryant and to follow her instructions.
14.
On 22 December 2015, Defendant’s attorney Teresa
D. Bryant filed her “Second and Final Motion to Withdraw” stating there was “no
way possible that she can continue to represent [Defendant] as a result of his
actions and behavior” and because the Defendant desired her to represent him in
a manner “which would be violative of her ethical, professional, and moral
standards.”
15.
On 22 December 2015, the Defendant filed an
“Amended Motion for Reconsideration and Relief” of the 9 January 2015 child
custody and child support Order. This motion was filed by the Defendant pro se.
16.
On 12 January 2016, the Defendant filed his
“Objection to Motion to Withdraw” with an attached transcript of the 19
February 2015 hearing before Judge DeSoto.
.
17.
A hearing on Ms. Bryant’s second motion to
withdraw was conducted on 19 January 2016.
Following the hearing, the Court orally announced on the record and in
open Court that Ms. Bryant was allowed to withdraw and she was relieved as
Defendant’s attorney in this matter.
Plaintiff’s attorney was present and did not object to the
withdrawal. The
Defendant desired
to communicate directly with Plaintiff’s attorney. However, because of the nature of the
Defendant’s past behavior, Plaintiff’s attorney made clear to Defendant and the
Court that he desired limited communication and in the form of e-mail or
writings only.
18.
Ms. Bryant did not prepare and present her
proposed Order to the Court for signature until December 2016. The written Order was signed and filed on 13
December 2016 allowing Ms. Bryant’s withdrawal effective 19 January 2016 as
Defendant’s attorney. The Court made specific findings in the Order justifying
the allowance of Ms. Bryant’s withdrawal as Defendant’s counsel. The Defendant
had continued to engage in behavior inconsistent with and disruptive of Ms.
Bryant’s efforts to act as his attorney.
Ms. Bryant was required to prohibit him from coming to her office. She was no longer comfortable being in the
same room with him. Defendant was
abusive in terms of the number and content of his e-mails to Ms. Bryant,
forcing her to prohibit calls and e-mails from him. Ms. Bryant came to believe Mr. Grodner had
improper motives in recording their meetings.
Defendant had transcribed recordings of their meetings and placed it in
the public record. Ms. Bryant was
concerned about the level of conflict with Defendant such that she might be
required to obtain a restraining Order.
Defendant had not cooperated with Ms. Bryant as required by Judge
DeSoto’s Order, and Ms. Bryant remained concerned that the Defendant desired
her to engage in improper conduct in her handling of his case. The Order also
specified the Defendant was to have no direct contact with Plaintiff’s attorney
and that his direct communication was to be by e-mail only. The Defendant was
specifically ordered and instructed that his email communications were to be
concisely related to the case and were not be abusive in content or in
quantity.
19.
The hearing on the Defendant’s pending motions
for reconsideration was held 14 December 2016. The Defendant appeared and
represented himself at that hearing. Initially he argued with the court about
his motions to continue. Even after the
Court advised him his motions to continue were denied, Defendant kept inquiring
of the Court and arguing with the Court about the matter. Defendant continued
to argue about his “rights” and his desires regarding the records
notwithstanding the Court’s continued effort to have him focus on and argue the
merits of the allegations in his motions for reconsideration. The Defendant has
exhibited similar conduct with this Court during this hearing.
20.
On 12 January 2017, an Order was entered denying
the Defendant’s motions for reconsideration. The Defendant appealed the 12
January 2017 Order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. That Court affirmed
the District Court’s Order. The Defendant petitioned for discretionary review
and appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which has not yet decided
whether to grant review in the matter.
21.
The issues now before this Court involve
interlocutory matters unconnected to the pending appeal.
22.
Because of problems with the Defendant’s direct
e-mail communications with him, which Mr. Miller alleged to be abusive,
harassing, and excessive, in 2018 Mr. Miller directed Defendant to cease his
email communications and to communicate only by regular mail. Defendant
declined to do so, contending that the Court had authorized him to communicate
by e-mail and that he was required to conduct his communications by e-mail
pursuant to the Court’s Order allowing Ms. Bryant’s withdrawal in 2016.
23.
Because Defendant failed to cease the e-mail
communications as requested, Mr. Miller informed Defendant of his intent to
deliver the e-mails to law enforcement for appropriate action.
24.
On 12 October 2018, Defendant filed a “Motion to
Remove Opposing
Counsel,”
alleging as grounds that Mr. Miller violated Rule 4.1 of the Rules of
Professional Conduct by stating to Defendant in an e-mail “If you [i.e.,
Defendant] send me another text or e-mail communication I plan to contact law
enforcement. Any further communications with me [i.e., Mr. Miller] should be in
writing in the form of a letter or formal court document” and later stating “I
[Mr. Miller] am delivering your [Defendant’s] text messages to law enforcement.
I am also reminding you to stop texting or e-mailing me.” Defendant alleged
these statements were false because the 13 December 2016 Order explicitly
provided for direct communication with Mr. Miller by e-mail only and were
statements of “material fact” because Mr. Miller’s unwillingness to comply with
the 13 December 2016 Order prevented the parties from communicating with each
other, thereby making it impossible to abide by any court Order in the case.
25.
The Defendant has mailed communications to Mr.
Miller via the U.S. Postal Service. He is able to communicate with Mr. Miller
about this case by means of regular mail. Mr. Miller has not objected to
relevant, court-related mailings from the Defendant through the U.S. Postal
Service.
26.
On 18 October 2018, the Defendant served a
Notice of Deposition on Jeffrey
L. Miller seeking
an oral deposition of Mr. Miller to be taken in Wilson, North Carolina on 1
November 2018. Mr. Miller is the Plaintiff’s attorney of record. He is a
resident of Pitt County, North Carolina.
He is not a party in this action. The Notice also requested Mr. Miller
to produce privileged documents at the deposition.
27.
In addition to the deposition Notice, Defendant
served Mr. Miller with a subpoena issued by a Deputy Clerk on 18 October 2018,
commanding Mr. Miller to appear in Wilson, North Carolina and to produce
documents.
28.
On 26 October 2018, Mr. Miller filed and served
his Objection to the deposition and subpoena and a Motion to Quash the
subpoena. Mr. Miller alleged as grounds in support of his Objection and Motion
to Quash, inter alia, that he was not subject to deposition in Wilson, North
Carolina pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure; that the
subpoena was unreasonable, burdensome, and oppressive and subjected Mr. Miller
to an undue burden and expense; and, that the deposition Notice and subpoena
sought production of documents which were protected by the attorney-client
privilege. Mr. Miller requested that his objection be sustained, that the
subpoena be quashed, and that the Defendant be taxed with attorney’s fees and
costs.
29.
On 2 November 2018, Defendant filed and served
his “Verified Motion for Summary Judgment or in alternative, Motion to Compel
Discovery.” Attached to the verified Motion were the Motion to Remove Opposing
Counsel, copies of e-mails sent by Defendant on 15 October 2018 and 18 October
2018, the Notice of Deposition and subpoena served on Mr. Miller, Mr. Miller’s
Objection and Motion to Quash, and a proposed Order granting Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment.
30.
In his verified Motion, Defendant alleged as
“material facts” the communication terms of the 13 December 2016 Order and Mr.
Miller’s refusal to communicate via e-mail and “threatening the Defendant with
‘law enforcement’ ” if he continued his e-mail communications. Defendant
contended he was entitled to a summary judgment granting the removal of Jeffrey
Miller as Plaintiff’s attorney because there was no issue of material fact that
Mr. Miller had violated Rule 4.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and
because his conduct prevented the parties from communicating with each other.
31.
On 14 November 2018, a hearing was held on the
Defendant’s motions seeking to remove Mr. Miller as Plaintiff’s attorney and/or
to compel discovery, and on the Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s attorney’s
objections and motion to quash the Defendant’s noticed deposition and subpoena.
32.
On 17 December 2018, the Court entered its Order
from the 14 November 2018 hearing in which it denied the Defendant’s Motion to
Remove the Plaintiff’s attorney, denied the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment removal of Plaintiff’s attorney, sustained and allowed Plaintiff’s
Objection and Motion to Quash the deposition and Defendant’s subpoena, denied
the Defendant’s motion to compel discovery, and reserved ruling and held open
the Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees to be paid by Defendant. In its
Order, the Court made specific findings as follows:
The Defendant has shown no basis in law or fact for this Court’s
removal of Jeffrey L. Miller as the Plaintiff’s attorney. The motions and the
Defendant’s allegations are wholly frivolous and insufficient on their face to support or
require the requested relief. The Motions are without factual or legal merit or
support. There is no showing or evidence that Mr. Miller has violated Rule 4.1
of the Rules of Professional Conduct, or that such a violation would require or
authorize this Court to summarily remove him as the Plaintiff’s chosen
attorney. The Defendant’s Motions seeking a summary judgment or an Order for
the removal of Mr. Miller as Plaintiff’s attorney should be and are properly
denied.
33.
On 27 December 2018, Defendant filed a Motion
pursuant to Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requesting “a new trial” on
his 2 November 2018 Motion for Summary Judgment to Remove Opposing Counsel. The
Motion for Summary Judgment to Remove Opposing Counsel was heard on 14 November
2018, and the Court denied that Motion by its Order entered on 17 December
2018.
34.
In support of his Rule 59 Motion, Defendant
cites Rule 59(a)(2) “misconduct of the jury or prevailing party” and makes
allegations that Plaintiff’s counsel “committed misconduct” by making false
statements of material fact to the Court in violation of Rules of Professional
Conduct.
35.
A jury was not involved in this matter.
Plaintiff’s counsel is not a party or a
“prevailing
party.”
36.
The Order denying Defendant’s motions seeking to
remove Plaintiff’s attorney is an interlocutory Order. The law is well
established that such interlocutory Orders are not the proper subject of, and
are not properly challenged by, a Rule 59 motion for a new trial. See Davis v. Rizzo, __ N.C. App. __, 819
S.E.2d 574, 580 (2018); Tetra Tech
Tesoro, Inc. v. JAAAT Tech. Services, LLC, __ N.C. App. __, 794 S.E.2d 535,
540 (2016).
37.
The Defendant’s “Verified Rule 59 Motion...” is
frivolous, without merit, nonjusticiable, and it is not supported by the well-established
law. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a response to the Motion that put Defendant on
notice that the Rule 59 motion was frivolous and unsupported by law, but
Defendant persisted and pursued his motion, and he desired to present it to
this Court notwithstanding such prior notice.
38.
On 16 November 2018, Defendant sent an email to
Kay Brown, a Pitt County Family Court administrator, Connie Bland, an assistant
clerk of court, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Miller’s legal assistant, Sandra
Worthington. In the email, Defendant advised Ms. Brown and Ms. Bland to
communicate to Judge Braddy that he was going to file a Motion to Recuse Judge
Braddy, and that if Judge Braddy didn’t “do it on his own...he will only have
himself to blame because now he knows what is coming.” Defendant stated that if
Judge Braddy had any reservations about what Defendant might write about his
conduct, he should familiarize himself with what the Defendant wrote in his
Petition for Discretionary Review in which he presented how the Court of Appeals
Chief Judge McGee and Associate Judge Murphy “lied and acted unethically which,
if rejected by NC Supreme Court, will result in Complaint to the Judicial
Standards Commission.” [Emphasis added] Defendant cited his personal “blogspot”
on an internet site as a reference. He also contended Judge Braddy recited
“lies” that Mr. Miller is saying, that Judge Braddy “may actually not be able
to read and understand COA opinions and NC Statutes, that Mr. Miller will never
tell Judge Braddy the truth, that Mr. Miller “mercilessly took advantage of
Judge Braddy’s inability to comprehend the law for his personal gain without
any regard of the consequences for Judge Braddy,” that Defendant could not
expect Judge Braddy “to uphold the law since he cannot comprehend it,” and,
that Defendant was “sorry that Motion to Recuse (and what follows) will be
embarrassing for him.”
39.
As a consequence of the Defendant’s 16 November
2018 email, Judge Braddy filed a copy of the email in the record of this
action, and a hearing was scheduled on 7 January 2019 before Judge Lee Teague
on the issue of Judge Braddy’s recusal as raised by the Defendant. The parties
were given notice of the hearing. Mr. Miller did not in any manner cause or
precipitate the hearing. The Defendant’s
conduct was the sole reason for the hearing and for Judge Teague’s ultimate
decision about Judge Braddy’s recusal.
40.
On 27 December 2018, the Defendant issued
subpoenas for the 7 January 2019 hearing, including a subpoena for Judge
Braddy, Jeffrey Miller, Eric Summerlin, and Hunter Summerlin to appear and
testify at the 7 January 2019 hearing on the issue of Judge Braddy’s recusal.
41.
On 2 January 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel filed an
Objection, Motion to Quash, Motion for Attorney Fees, and Motion for Rule 11
Sanctions in opposition to the subpoenas served on Eric Summerlin, Hunter
Summerlin, and Jeffrey Miller.
42.
Because Defendant issued a subpoena for a
judicial official, Anna Davis, Assistant Attorney General, was assigned to
represent Judge Braddy.
43.
On 4 January 2019, Defendant issued another
Notice of Deposition and subpoena on Jeffrey L. Miller for a deposition seeking
to compel Mr. Miller to appear and testify at a deposition on 18 January 2019
in the Pitt County Clerk’s office. The subpoena indicated the purpose of the
deposition was related to the Plaintiff’s 28 November 2018 Motion to Modify and
Limit Defendant’s Communications.
44.
Over the weekend of 5 January 2019, the
Defendant sent an email withdrawing the four subpoenas he had issued for 7
January 2019. At 8:06 a.m. on the morning of the hearing scheduled on the issue
created by Defendant’s email and statements, Defendant came to the Pitt County
Courthouse and filed with the Clerk’s office written notices of his withdrawal
of the subpoenas.
45.
The hearing on the issue of the Defendant’s 16
November 2018 email demands and statements about Judge Braddy was heard as
scheduled on 7 January 2019. Though he had been at the courthouse earlier that
morning, the Defendant did not appear for the hearing. Because Anna Davis, Assistant
Attorney General, had not received notice of the Defendant’s withdrawal of the
subpoena for Judge Braddy, she appeared in Court and was present for the
hearing. Though the subpoena had been withdrawn, Ms. Davis filed a Motion to
Quash the subpoena served on Judge Braddy. Mr. Miller appeared in court on
behalf of the Summerlins and as attorney for Plaintiff. The Honorable Lee
Teague conducted a hearing and entered his Order on 8 January 2019. In the
Order, Judge Teague made specific findings about the Defendant’s conduct and
derogatory statements about Judge Braddy, court staff, Mr. Miller and the
District Court judiciary and staff, which Defendant publishes in his internet
public blog. In his communications, Defendant accused the Family Court staff of
being dishonest, and claimed the Court accepted Mr. Miller’s lies as the truth.
Defendant solicits money donations from his blog readers.
46.
In his 8 January 2019 Order, Judge Teague found
that Defendant was the one who actively created the perception of a bias against him, and that Judge Braddy did
not have a bias. However, because of the Defendant’s conduct and statements,
and out of an abundance of caution to avoid even the suspicion or appearance of
bias, Judge Teague ordered that Judge Braddy was allowed to recuse himself from
further proceedings in this case. Nothing in the Order suggested or supported
any contention that Mr. Miller or any person other than the Defendant was
responsible for the recusal of Judge Braddy.
47.
In reference to the recusal Order, on 11 January
2019, Defendant authored one of his numerous false and derogatory emails
proclaiming “Chief Pitt County Judge
Braddy brutally removed from a case for Jeffrey L. Miller’s misconduct.”
The email was sent to Megan Hartzog, Kay Brown, Sandra Worthington, Connie
Bland, Debra Toomey, Nancy Ray, Patricia Perkins, Sandra Ruffin, Sarah Page,
Vonda Hausle, Yari Carreno, Jeff Miller, Larry Economos, Teresa Bryant, Matthew
Jackson, Jay Audino, and Luella Crane. The false statement was made by the Defendant
notwithstanding his knowledge and the Court’s findings of the true facts
surrounding the recusal of Judge Braddy, which the Defendant alone caused by
his own misconduct.
48.
On 9 January 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel filed an
Objection, Motion to Quash, Motion for Protective Order, and Motion for
Attorney Fees in opposition to Defendant’s 4 January 2019 notice of deposition
and subpoena.
49.
On 25 February 2019, Defendant issued another
subpoena to Jeffrey Miller to appear and testify at this hearing on 7 March
2019 and to produce “any materials” supporting email statements concerning an
unrelated 1982 case, Cannon v. Miller.
On 28 February 2019,
Mr. Miller filed
an Objection, Motion to Quash, and Motion for Attorney fees concerning the
subpoena.
50.
Because of the circumstances created by
Defendant and his statements about the judicial and court staff of Pitt County,
the undersigned was assigned to hear this matter as an out-of-district Judge
with no prior connections to the case, the parties, or the attorney.
51.
This matter is properly before the Court for
hearing. At the outset of the case, the Defendant requested that the hearing be
continued. The basis for the request was that Mr. Miller is a liar and the
Defendant can not get a fair hearing as long as Mr. Miller is the attorney for
the Plaintiff. There is no merit to the Defendant’s request and his Motion to
Continue should be denied.
52.
During this hearing Defendant repeatedly called
Mr. Miller a “liar”, accused Mr. Miller of lying, and accused Mr. Miller of
lying to the Court. The premise of his Rule 59 new trial motion was that he
could not get a fair trial and that he would be prejudiced because Mr. Miller
was a liar and the Court accepted his “lies.” The Defendant made a similar
argument in his Motions before the Court at the 14 November 2018 hearing when
he sought to have Mr. Miller removed and his Motions were denied by the Order entered
17 December 2018.
53.
The Defendant calls those with whom he disagrees
“liars” or dishonest or corrupt. He has prepared and filed documents with the
North Carolina Appellate Courts accusing the entire panel of the Court of
Appeals of having made intentional misrepresentations for the knowing purpose
of rendering a miscarriage of justice, calling Judge Murphy corrupt and
accusing him of making a false statement with the assistance of Chief Judge
McGee, stating Judge Murphy intentionally made multiple false statements, and
that Chief Judge McGee willfully promoted Judge Murphy’s false statements and
misrepresentations.
54.
Notwithstanding the facially improper,
unsupported, and frivolous Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial concerning an
interlocutory Order, this Court attempted to give the Defendant some leeway and
to indulge his efforts by trying to have him focus on his request of the Court
in a structured and understandable manner. The Court frequently asked him
direct questions and gave him direct instructions. Defendant evaded the Court’s
efforts and generally refused to follow the Court’s instructions. He attempted
to argue with and question the Court, and he was frequently non-responsive in
his statements. He complained about the Court interrupting him when the Court
attempted to have him focus on the relevant matters.
55.
This Court reviewed the documents presented by
Defendant. Other than the Defendant’s persistent personal statement that Mr.
Miller was a liar, the Defendant presented no evidence to support his statements
or claims or to support to any entitlement to any form of relief. The exhibits
presented by Defendant do not prove that Mr. Miller made any false
representations or statements to this or any other Court. This Court finds
there is nothing in the evidence presented, or otherwise, to substantiate the
Defendant’s personal speculations, feelings, statements or claims. In Exhibit 6
introduced by the Defendant in support of his claims, Mr. Miller clearly and
succinctly stated he had not lied about anything, that he did not have ex parte
contact with Judge Teague, and that Judge Teague did not receive a message from
him with regard to the hearing and Order for the recusal of Judge Galen Braddy.
Defendant stated he believed there were deleted e-mails, that Megan Hartzog
deleted emails, and that he believed Mr. Miller urged or caused ex parte
contacts and misbehavior by Ms. Hartzog. When asked by this Court for any
substantive evidence of such a serious claim, Defendant admitted he had none.
The Court finds Defendant’s perceptions and belief to be unique to himself and
not supported by any credible evidence presented to this Court. There is no
evidence Mr. Miller lied to anyone or had ex parte contact with Judge Teague.
The evidence indicates and the Court finds Mr. Miller did not lie or make
misrepresentations to the Court and he did not have ex parte contact with Judge
Teague. Defendant is not credible.
(See actual evidence and record regarding the hearing: http://grodnerdivorce.blogspot.com/2019/03/court-hearing-3719-full.html)
56.
Defendant did not present any relevant fact,
item of evidence, or rational argument that in any manner would have supported
a proper Rule 59 Motion. There is no legitimate factual support or basis for
the Defendant’s Rule 59 motion premised on any claim that Mr. Miller lied, or
otherwise.
57.
The Defendant’s Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial
should be denied as unsupported, unauthorized, frivolous, non-justiciable, and
wholly lacking in merit. The Motion is
not well-grounded in fact, and it is not warranted by existing law or any good
faith argument related to existing law. The Motion has been interposed for an
improper purpose to harass and needlessly increase the costs of this
litigation. In a text message sent to the Plaintiff in 2017, Defendant told her
he had planned to make matters long and extended and that his costs were no
longer important because he did not have a lawyer and was representing himself.
The clear implication was that Defendant intended to drag matters out in order
to cause the Plaintiff to incur costs needlessly as shee had an attorney to
pay. He has needlessly and purposely increased the costs of this litigation for
his own agenda and purposes unconnected to any substantive matter connected to
the case itself.
58.
This Court quashed the subpoena issued to Megan
Hartzog upon the Motion of the Assistant Attorney General and a separate Order
has been entered on that matter.
59.
The Defendant has issued numerous subpoenas to
Jeffrey L. Miller, attorney for the Plaintiff. Mr. Miller has filed an
objection and motion to quash as to each subpoena, with a request for attorney
fees. There has been no showing of any particularized need or relevant evidence
that might justify or require the subpoenaed testimony of Mr. Miller. The
issues for which Defendant has issued the subpoenas as reflected on the
subpoenas have no relation to any substantive fact in this case and appear to
serve only the Defendant’s own personal agenda and animus toward Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller and this Court have advised the Defendant that he should pursue any
grievances or personal issues with Mr. Miller as a lawyer in a different forum
and in a different manner, but Defendant disagreed and chose to argue with the
Court. Defendant’s subpoenas are unreasonable and oppressive, and have been
designed for the specific and improper purpose of interfering with and
preventing the attorney-client relationship between Mr. Miller and his client,
the Plaintiff. They have served to harass the Plaintiff and her attorney, and
have created a needless increase in the costs of this litigation. The subpoenas
violate Rule 11 as they are a document prepared by and issued in this action on
behalf of Defendant. Counsel’s objection and motion to quash the subpoena
should be allowed.
60.
The Defendant has engaged in frequent and
repeated email communications with Mr. Miller and with court staff. Mr. Miller
has repeatedly advised and requested Defendant to cease his email
communications with him. The Defendant refuses to heed or to comply with Mr.
Miller’s request. The Defendant’s emails are harassing and abusive in nature,
frequency, and content. The volume of emails is excessive. The Defendant
believes he has a right to engage in email communications with Mr. Miller.
Though the Court’s order allowing Ms. Bryant to withdraw as Defendant’s
attorney because of his abusive and problematical conduct with her permitted
direct communication with Mr. Miller by email only, that contact was consented
to at the time by Mr. Miller as a means to avoid personal contact and personal
communication, and Defendant was ordered to make such email contact concisely
related to the case and to refrain from any abusive emails in content or in
quantity. In 2018, Mr. Miller gave Defendant repeated notice the email consent
was revoked and that Defendant should discontinue any further email
communication. The Defendant’s email communications were and are harassing and
abusive in nature and they violate the Court’s Order that they not be abusive
in content or in quantity.
61.
At approximately 12:30 p.m. on 7 March 2019,
this Court in open court granted Mr. Miller’s motion to limit Defendant’s
communications, and it specifically directed and instructed the Defendant to
cease his email communications with Mr. Miller.
62.
It is clear to this Court that the Defendant has
engaged in repeated conduct disruptive to the orderly and efficient
administration of justice. His emails and his filings with the Court are
abusive, frivolous, and disturbing. The evident purpose of his actions has been
to harass, persecute, vex, and cause unnecessary cost to Plaintiff, her
attorney, and the judicial system. He has used his access and connections to
the Court, the Court system, and the Court’s staff and officers, including Mr.
Miller, for improper purposes and his own personal agenda and soapbox. He has
violated Rule 11 and is subject to sanctions and an assessment of reasonable
attorney fees for his conduct in his filings and his subpoenas.
63.
The Plaintiff’s motion for a restraint and
gatekeeper limitation on Defendant’s conduct has merit, is justified and should
be allowed. The Defendant’s court filings, and his email and other communications
with counsel and the court staff of Pitt County should be restrained and
limited. Due to the Defendant’s conduct the sanction of a gatekeeper order is a
necessary and appropriate sanction.
64.
In order to consolidate the Plaintiff’s and her
counsel’s several requests and entitlements to attorney fees, and because there
remains an unresolved matter still pending determination by the North Carolina
Supreme Court in which additional attorney fees may be awarded, upon the
Plaintiff’s request, the issue of the amount of reasonable attorney fees and
costs to be awarded Plaintiff and her counsel is deferred for later
determination.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and
the subject matter.
2.
The Defendant’s motion to continue is without
merit and should be denied.
3.
The Defendant’s Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial
is wholly without merit, frivolous, non-justiciable, unsupported by facts or
law, and has been asserted for an improper purpose. It is insufficient on its
face and it has been filed in violation of Rule 11. It should be dismissed and
Defendant should be sanctioned.
4.
The Defendant’s subpoenas of Plaintiff’s counsel
are unreasonable, burdensome, and oppressive. They should be quashed.
5.
The Defendant’s emails to Mr. Miller and to
court staff are harassing and abusive.
6.
The Plaintiff’s Motion to modify and limit
Defendant’s contacts and communications and to stop Defendant’s email
communications has merit and should be allowed. Counsel for Plaintiff has
withdrawn consent for Defendant to email him. In addition to prior notice,
Defendant was on actual notice of same effective 7 March 2019. This Court
directly informed, advised, and instructed Defendant at approximately 12:30 pm
on 7 March 2019 that he was restrained and prohibited from emailing Mr. Miller.
7.
Plaintiff and her counsel and the court system
are entitled to a gatekeeper order as a sanction against Defendant. Defendant
has abused his privileges of communication and court filings by his frivolous,
non-justiciable, harassing, abusive, vexatious, and costly conduct.
8.
Defendant has violated the requirements of Rule
11 and he should be sanctioned.
9.
The Plaintiff’s and her counsel’s entitlement to
reasonable attorney fees and costs should be deferred and determined by this
Court at a later date.
ORDER
BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:
1.
Defendant’s Motion to Continue is DENIED.
2.
Defendant’s Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial is
DENIED.
3.
Plaintiff’s and her counsel’s Motion to limit
the Defendant’s communications is ALLOWED. Effective 12:30 p.m on 7 March 2019,
and pursuant to the express instructions, directions, and order rendered in
open Court in the Defendant’s presence, the Defendant shall cease, and he is
ordered restrained from, sending or transmitting, or causing to be transmitted
or sent, any emails or text communications to any of the following: (a) the
Plaintiff and her husband Eric Summerlin; (b) Plaintiff’s attorney, Jeffrey L.
Miller, his office, and any member of his office or staff; (c) any District
Court Judge; (d) any employee, administrator, or staff of the District Court of
Pitt County; (e) any clerk or office member or employee of the Pitt County
Clerk’s Office. Hereafter, any communications, service of documents, or filings
by Defendant with any of the above-named entities shall be by regular mail,
UPS, or Federal Express delivery, and shall be subject to the certification and
review provisions of the gatekeeper order sanction described below. Defendant
shall not go about or upon Mr. Miller’s office or residential premises and he
is restrained from any direct communication or contact with Plaintiff’s counsel
outside of the courtroom or except as permitted with an attorney’s
certification as set forth in the gatekeeper provision below.
4.
Plaintiff’s and her counsel’s Objection and
Motion to Quash the Defendant’s subpoena is ALLOWED.
5.
Defendant has violated Rule 11 and should be
sanctioned. A gatekeeper order is an appropriate and necessary sanction. It is
reasonable under the circumstances.
6.
The Defendant is restrained from any further
written communications or filings in this or any other action in the trial
court divisions of the North Carolina General Court of Justice unless there
accompanies or appears on the proposed document(s) for communication, to be
delivered, or to be filed, a contemporaneous written certification and
signature by a licensed and active member of the North Carolina State Bar with
an office address in this State that he/she has read the document and certifies
it to be relevant, appropriate, factually supported, supported by existing law,
and submitted for a proper purpose. The signing attorney shall be subject to
and constrained by the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
7.
The Plaintiff’s and her counsel’s entitlements
to costs and reasonable attorney fees shall be deferred and reserved for later
determination.
This ___ day of March 2019.
________________________________
Paul Hardison
District Court Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Order was
served upon the defendant by mailing same to him personally, Andrew Grodner, P.
O. Box 3571, Greenville, NC 27836, as provided by the applicable North Carolina
Rules of Civil Procedure.
This the ___ day of March 2019.
_________________________________
Jeffrey L. Miller
