Direct link:https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=266296
=================
All files in the Supreme Court case: 306P18-3:
https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/search-results.php?sDocketSearch=306P18-3&exact=1
All files in the Supreme Court case: 306P18-2:
https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/search-results.php?sDocketSearch=306P18-2&exact=1
All files in the case COA case P19-308: https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/search-results.php?sDocketSearch=P19-308&exact=1
=========================
No. 306P18-2 THREE-A DISTRICT
SUPREME
COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
*************************************************
HUNTER F. GRODNER, )
(now
Summerlin) )
Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent,
)
) From
Pitt County
vs. )
No. (COA) P19-308
)
ANDRZEJ GRODNER,
)
(now
Andrew Grodner)
)
Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner,)
____________________________________)
*************************************************
VERIFIED
SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL AND TO CORRECT THIS COURT'S
FUNDAMENTAL AND FATAL ERROR
*************************************************
(Filed
electronically 13 May 2020)
*****
TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME
COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA:
Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Andrzej Grodner (currently Andrew
Grodner) ("Defendant"), acting pro se, pursuant to North Carolina
Rules of Appellate Procedure ("N.C.R.A.P.") Rules 34 and 37, pursuant
to the NC Rules of Professional Conduct,
pursuant to NC General Statutes and case law, pursuant to the due process and
access to the courts provisions in both the United States and North Carolina
Constitutions, and due to the FUNDAMENTAL AND FATAL ERROR committed
by this Court when on 6 May 2020 it incorrectly considered 9 October 2019 Jeffrey
L. Miller's RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE TO PETITIONS AND MOTIONS OF THE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; AND, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES
("MOTION TO TAX") without considering 16 October 2019 Defendant's
VERIFIED RESPONSE TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES AND GATEKEEPER
SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL ("MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY") (EXHIBIT A), Defendant respectfully requests this Court to
properly consider disqualification of Jeffrey L. Miller from any and all legal
matters involving Defendant because his continuing dishonesty prejudices the
Defendant and results in violation of Defendant's due process right, as well as
contributes to further miscarriage of justice perpetuated against the Defendant.
In support of this Motion, Defendant shows the following:
SUPPORT IN FACT
- On 9 October 2019 Jeffrey L. Miller filed with this Court MOTION TO TAX where he objected to all of the Defendant's filings with this Court (at that moment) as lacking factual or legal merit, requested this Court to dismiss all of them, and asked this Court to sanction the Defendant by taxing him double the cost in this matter.
- On 16 October 2019 Defendant filed VERIFIED RESPONSE TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES AND GATEKEEPER SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL ("MOTION TO DISQUALIFY"), where he provided evidence, with a sworn AFFIDAVIT (EXHIBIT B), that in his MOTION TO TAX Jeffrey L. Miller willfully and knowingly made multiple false statements of material fact and misrepresented legal authority to this honorable Court. Defendant also provided a World Wide Web link to other resources which document a very long and extensive, yet selective history of Jeffrey L. Miller's false statements to his clients, parties, other attorneys, which occurred during legal proceedings and outside them (including this one). ("False and misleading statements by Jeffrey L. Miller (very limited selection" https://grodnerdivorce.blogspot.com/p/false-statements-by-jeffrey-l-miller.html)
- In particular, in his MOTION TO DISQUALIFY, the Defendant:
request(ed) that this Court to deny [Jeffrey L.
Miller's MOTION] because it is not supported by fact and done solely to harass
the Defendant. Consequently, based on Jeffrey L. Miller's knowing and willful
false statements in his [9 October 2019 MOTION] as well as volumnus past false
statements in front of this and other tribunals made for the sole purpose of misleading
presiding judges -- in violation of the Rules of
Legal Ethics -- Defendant respectfully requests this Court to strike
his pleadings and to further disqualify Jeffrey L. Miller from any and all
legal matters involving Defendant because his continuing dishonesty prejudices
the Defendant and results in violation of Defendant's due process right.
(original emphasis)
4. On 29 April 2020 this Court ruled on all
outstanding PETITIONS, RESPONSES, and MOTIONS in the above-captioned case (No.
306P18-2) and on 6 May 2020 issued many Orders, including one that granted
Defendant's request to deny Jeffrey L. Miller's MOTION TO TAX.
5. One of the Orders issued 6 May 2020 deemed
Defendant's MOTION TO DISQUALIFY as moot even though it did not specify how the
dispute at hand has been resolved (disqualification of Jeffrey L. Miller) and
no relief has been granted (Jeffrey L. Miller is still attorney of record for
the Plaintiff and this Court maintains the power to grant such relief).
6. Due to lack of clarity and seeking amicable
resolution to this matter, on 11 May 2020 Defendant emailed Jeffrey L. Miller:
In light of the recent NC Supreme Court decision
from 6 May (see attached) denying your Motion to Tax Costs and Attorney Fees, I
want to ask you whether you wish to issue an apology, a correction, or whether
you have made any decisions regarding your representation of Ms. Summerlin in
any and all the actions regarding my divorce.
I am reaching out to you in good faith before I
am forced to take further legal action to defend myself against your relentless
harassment and abuse of my person. I hope we can resolve this matter amicably
and that you will voluntarily withdraw from the case rather than me having to
seek your disqualification.
7. In response, later on 11 May 2020 Jeffrey L.
Miller wrote:
Mr. Grodner - When something occurs for which I
rationally owe an apology, be assured I will provide one. You have not been
harassed or abused, and certainly not by me. You are the victim only of your
own conduct.
As I recall, there is no "divorce" at
issue.
The Supreme Court's decision regarding my
attorney fees concerned only the matter and time before it, and you are
fortunate they did not assess you for your conduct in that venue. Perhaps you
should apologize for wasting everyone's time in that process.
The 25 June 2019 order is no longer effective or
operative in my opinion, and your email certainly does not fall within its
contemplation or purpose, but I'm sure the court will sort it out at some
point. I believe your communication seeking an apology and my withdrawal under
some implied and groundless threat about seeking my disqualification violates
the purpose of the appellate Order in any event.
SUPPORT
IN LAW -
THIS
MATTER PROPERLY AND EXCLUSIVELY BEFORE THIS COURT
8. Jeffrey L. Miller's MOTION TO TAX was
denied by this Court, as opposed to being dismissed or deemed moot. Therefore,
this Court considered Jeffrey L. Miller's MOTION TO TAX to be properly before
this Court and determined it on the merits. This means that the Defendant's
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY should have been also considered on its merits before this
Court ruled on the MOTION TO TAX because MOTION TO DISQUALIFY directly followed
MOTION TO TAX and MOTION TO DISQUALIFY explicitly referred to MOTION TO TAX. In
other words, this Court could have ruled on MOTION TO DISQUALIFY and then
dismiss MOTION TO TAX as moot but not the other way around. However, this Court
did not consider MOTION TO DISQUALIFY on its merits but rather dismissed it as
moot, and thus committed FUNDAMENTAL AND FATAL ERROR which
invalidates its Orders issued on 6 May 2020. Yet, this Court and this Court
ONLY has has the power and the opportunity to correct its error and properly
consider disqualification of Jeffrey L. Miller. Therefore this SECOND MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY is properly before this Court.
9. Because this Court is yet to rule on MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY and, due to no other evidence or information to the contrary,
because this Court agrees with the Defendant that Jeffrey L. Miller provided
willful and knowing false statements of material fact in his MOTION TO TAX,
this SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY is also properly before this Court.
10. This SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY is filed within
10 days of the 6 May 2020 Order. There is no other tribunal that can determine
whether Jeffrey L. Miller was dishonest before this Court and thus this Court
has exclusive jurisdiction over this matter and no other tribunal can grant
Defendants' relief, which is disqualification of Jeffrey L. Miller.
SUPPORT
IN LAW - STATUTES
11. This Court has jurisdiction to resolve matters
related to attorney misconduct appearing before it because North Carolina
General Statute § 84-36 specifically states that the Courts retained their
original jurisdiction to address - and remedy - attorney misconduct:
§ 84-36. Inherent powers of courts unaffected. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed as disabling
or abridging the inherent powers of the court to deal with its attorneys.
12. The inherent powers of courts is also affirmed
by North Carolina State Bar own rules as stated in 27 N.C.A.C. Chapter 1B -
Discipline and Disability Rules, Section .0100 Discipline and Disability of
Attorneys, .0102 Procedure for Discipline, Rule (c)(2):
Rule (c)(2) Inherent Authority of State Courts - The courts of this state have inherent authority to take
disciplinary action against attorneys practicing therein, even in relation to
matters not pending in the court exercising disciplinary authority.
13. The North Carolina State Bar specifies that
attorneys must stop representing a client when he or she violates NC BAR Rules
of professional conduct. Further, that only a judge can disqualify an
attorney, as stated in RULE 1.16 DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION:
(a)(1) Except as stated in paragraph, a lawyer shall not represent
a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the
representation of a client if: (1) the representation will result in violation
of law or the Rules of Professional Conduct;:
..............................
(c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to
or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to
do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding
good cause for terminating the representation.
14. The North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct
explicitly requires judges to maintain proper decorum and discipline attorneys
who run afoul of the rules of legal ethics:
Canon 3(A)(1) A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain
professional competence in it. A judge should be unswayed by partisan
interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
Canon 3(A)(2) A judge should maintain order and decorum in
proceedings before the judge. Canon 3(B)(3) A judge should take or initiate
appropriate disciplinary measures against a judge or lawyer for
unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware.
15. US Constitution guarantees due process in the
Bill of Rights. In particular, the clause in the Fifth Amendment reads:
"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law," while the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment adds:
"(...) nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law."
SUPPORT
IN LAW - CASE LAW
16. There is voluminous case law confirming that
judges have jurisdiction, and in fact, a duty to make sure attorneys abide by
the rules of professional conduct, and take appropriate action if necessary. See
Egelhof v. Szulik, 193 N.C. App. 612, 620-21, 668 S.E.2d 367, 373
(2008):
I. Inherent Power of the Court to Discipline Attorneys. The trial court's authority to impose sanctions is not limited to
Rule 11. Sanctions can also be ordered under a court's inherent power to
deal with attorneys appearing before it. North Carolina State Bar v.
Randolph, 325 N.C. 699, 701, 386 S.E.2d 185, 186 (1989). "[I]t has
been held repeatedly that in North Carolina there are two methods by which
disciplinary action or disbarment may be imposed upon attorneys — statutory and
judicial." Id., at 701-02, 386 S.E.2d at 186. "Nothing
contained in [the statutes creating and empowering the State Bar to discipline
attorneys] shall be construed as disabling or abridging the inherent powers of
the court to deal with its attorneys." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 84-36 (2007). This
power includes the power to disbar attorneys appearing before it. See In
re Delk, 336 N.C. 543, 550, 444 S.E.2d 198, 201 (1994). (emphasis added)
17. Therefore, this Court, and all courts of General
Justice, retain the inherent power to address attorney misconduct especially
when it violates due process and to maintain the integrity of the proceedings
which occur before it. Couch v. Private Diagnostic Clinic, 146 N.C.App.
658, 663, 554 S.E.2d 356, 361 (2001).
18. When it is clear, as it is here, that a lawyer
has violated the rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 12 of the General Rules
of Practice for Superior and District Court (as described more fully in
Defendant’s Affidavit to MOTION TO DISQUALIFY), the Canons of Judicial Conduct
require the courts to take appropriate action. See CANON (3)(B)(3):
"A judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures
against a judge or lawyer for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may
become aware." See also State v. Rivera, 350 NC 285, 291 (1999);
and generally Travco Hotels, Inc. v. Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc.,
332 N.C. 288, 420 S.E.2d 426 (1992)
19. It is within this Court’s broad inherent powers
to remove an attorney from a case. Nearly two centuries ago, in Anderson v.
Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 19 U.S. 204, 5 L.Ed. 242 (1821), the Supreme Court of
the United States stated, "Courts of justice are universally acknowledged
to be vested, by their very creation, with power to impose silence, respect,
and decorum, in their presence, and submission to their lawful mandates."
Id. at 228. These "inherent powers" are "governed not by rule or
statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own
affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases." Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386,
8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)." See also In re Small, 201 N.C.App. 390, 394,
689 S.E.2d 482, 485 (2009) ("[A] Superior Court, as part of its inherent
power to manage its affairs, to see that justice is done, and to see that the
administration of justice is accomplished as expeditiously as possible, has the
authority to impose reasonable and appropriate sanctions upon errant lawyers
practicing before it.") Since the courts can remove an attorney from
ALL his cases (via suspension from the practice of law or disbarment) and the
courts can disgorge an attorney of fees, it is self-evident that the removal of
an attorney of an attorney from a single case is within its inherent powers.
20. Disqualification/removal of opposing counsel is
the appropriate action when the combination of unethical conduct by opposing
counsel and the courts willingness to treat his false, unsupported statements like
the gospel deprived this pro se Defendant of due process. Just as in criminal
and quasi-criminal cases, an impartial decision maker is an essential right in
civil proceedings as well. “The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that
life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or
distorted conception of the facts or the law. . . . At the same time, it
preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness . . . by ensuring that no
person will be deprived of his interests in the absence of a proceeding in
which he may present his case with assurance that the arbiter is not
predisposed to find against him.” Marshall v. Jerrico, 446 U.S. 238, 242
(1980); Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982).
21. In a more recent case, In re Entzminger,
2019 WL 3558801 (N.C. App. 6 August 2019), which is currently under
consideration by this Court (317P19) to accept for discretionary review, NC
Court of Appeals upheld decision by the Pitt County District Judge to suspend
law license of an attorney for two years for a relatively minor false
statements made in front of him in violation of NC Bar Rules of Professional
Conduct (minor in comparison to what Jeffrey L. Miller has routinely done in
front of this and other tribunals). Therefore, if Pitt County District Judge
has jurisdiction and duty to sanction an attorney for misconduct that has been
committed right before him, then this Court does so as well. In fact, given 6
May 2020 Order by this Court, not considering this SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
would be dereliction of duty by this Court because there is no other tribunal
that can rule on it now or at any other point.
SHOWING
OF PROPER PURPOSE -
THIS
COURT NEEDS TO CONSIDER MOTION TO DISQUALIFY BEFORE DECIDING ON OTHER MATTERS
22. This Court committed a FUNDAMENTAL AND
FATAL ERROR when it incorrectly considered Jeffrey L. Miller's MOTION
TO TAX before considering Defendant's MOTION TO DISQUALIFY because:
a. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY followed MOTION TO TAX and
thus by basic logic this Court was required to follow the backward legal
process: before considering Defendant's PETITION this Court had to consider
Jeffrey L. Miller's MOTION TO TAX and its objections, and before considering
Jeffrey L. Miller MOTION TO TAX this Court had to consider MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
with response to Jeffrey L. Miller's objections.
b. This Court's 6 May 2020 decision to dismiss
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY as moot is explicitly prejudicial and harmful to the
Defendant because if this Court did not consider MOTION TO DISQUALIFY which,
without objection, presented evidence and argument that Jeffrey L. Miller was
willfully and knowingly dishonest before this Court, then this Court also
knowingly and willfully engaged in the same conduct as Jeffrey L. Miller by
choosing to accept his false statements and misrepresentations when denying
Defendant's PETITION.
23. Thus Defendant not only is entitled to have a
ruling on this SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY to correct harm done by this Court's
8 May 2020 actions, but this Court must withdraw its order denying Defendant's
PETITION and consider it again in light of its ruling on Defendant's SECOND
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY. In other words, allowing any and all rulings of this or
any Court without considering SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY is equivalent to this
Court enabling Jeffrey L. Miller to continue his professional misconduct during
legal proceedings and thus continue harm on the Defendant.
24. On 6 May 2020 this Court denied Jeffrey L.
Miller's MOTION TO TAX, as opposed to dismissing it, and thus this Court
considered Jeffrey L. Miller's Motion to be properly before it and determined
MOTION TO TAX on its merits. Despite having over six months for response or
provide any type of rebuttal, Jeffrey L. Miller has not provided any. Likewise,
in its ruling, this Court did not seek or describe any other facts and/or
arguments beyond those presented by the Defendant.
25. This Court could seek response from Jeffrey L.
Miller or provide further reasoning of its decision but it did not, this Court
did not do so willfully, and this Court's silence was voluntary. Therefore, per
maxim qui tacet consentire videur, which precisely applies in the
current situation, the only conclusion can be that at this moment this Court
agrees with the Defendant that Jeffrey L. Miller committed misconduct in front
of it, which warranted dismissal of his MOTION TO TAX. By the same maxim,
Jeffrey L. Miller effectively admits to same.
26. In one of its Orders on 6 May 2020 this Court
determined Defendant's MOTION TO DISQUALIFY as moot. However, because Defendant
sought disqualification of Jeffrey L. Miller, which has not been yet granted,
and because of clear confirmation by 11 May 2020 email that he is still
representing the Plaintiff, the controversy is still in front of this Court and
thus cannot be moot. This is why Defendant has no other choice but he must file
this SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY, but this time with strong support of this
Court's ruling in Defendant's favor.
27. This Court determined that Jeffrey L. Miller has
the right to a ruling on his MOTION TO TAX and did so on the merits. Because
Defendant's MOTION TO DISQUALIFY was a direct result of a filed MOTION TO TAX
and he argued that if this Court denies MOTION TO TAX then this Court must
consider disqualification of Jeffrey L. Miller, by only ruling on MOTION TO TAX
but not on MOTION TO DISQUALIFY this Court prejudiced the defendant by favoring
Jeffrey L. Miller in providing him with the resolution to his MOTION TO TAX.
Defendant gives this Court benefit of the doubt and chooses to assume that his
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY was not carefully considered by this Court and committing FUNDAMENTAL
AND FATAL ERROR was an honest mistake. Therefore he files this SECOND
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY to give this Court an opportunity to correct its openly
prejudicial treatment of the Defendant.
28. When on 6 May 2020 this Court denied petition
filed on 24th of September 2019 by the Defendant for a writ of certiorari to
review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals in the case P19-308
("PETITION"), then this Court created a new legal issue to resolve
because of the missed deadlines by the Defendant with the NC Court of Appeal.
This Court also refused to suspend the Rules of Appellate Procedure to have the
deadlines tolled. Those missed deadlines occured for no fault of the Defendant
but due to the delay of this Court in issuing its ruling. Therefore, Defendant
must address that issue at his earliest opportunity to preserve the appeal process
at the NC Court of Appeals (Temporary Case number: P19-308). However, until
this Court rules on whether it would allow Jeffrey L. Miller to represent the
Plaintiff and thus continue to provide false statements to this and any other
Court, or whether this Court would disqualify him, the Defendant is denied due
process in any hearing involving Jeffrey L. Miller. In other words, lack of
ruling on disqualification matter of Jeffrey L. Miller would contribute to
further miscarriage of justice perpetuated against the Defendant.
SHOWING OF PROPER PURPOSE - CONTINUING MISCONDUCT
29. After this Court's 6 May 2020 Order Defendant
was hopeful that Jeffrey L. Miller would either stop making false statements in
front of the tribunal where proceedings occur with the Defendant present, or he
would voluntarily withdraw from the case to resolve this matter amicably.
Therefore, on 11 May 2020 Defendant sent email to Jeffrey L. Miller to give him
an opportunity to correct any statement, issue an apology, or decide to
withdraw. Defendant understands that for judicial economy this, and any other Court
prefers parties to settle their disputes between themselves and in showing of
such good faith the Defendant reached out to Jeffrey L. Miller.
30. The response from Jeffrey L. Miller on the same
day could not be more dismissive of the Defendant and combative in nature,
where Jeffrey L. Miller misrepresented this Court's ruling and further
threatened the defendant with unwarranted legal action. There was no humility
but rather promise of more of the same egregious misconduct which led to
dismissal of Jeffrey L. Miller's MOTION TO TAX by this Court.
31. Upon information and belief Jeffrey L. Miller is
determined to continue providing false statements to this and any other Court,
to continue harassing the Defendant, and has not shown any signs of changing
his unprofessional conduct. Thus, the only remedy remains his disqualification
by this Court.
SHOWING OF PROPER PURPOSE - DUE PROCESS
32. Due process is guaranteed to litigants in both
the US (via the Fourteenth Amendment) and NC Constitutions. Under the American
system of justice the courts do not gather facts and evidence. That is
the duty of the litigants - and lawyers - who appear before it. Therefore, the
legal process is dependent upon the honesty and the integrity of the litigants
who present the facts and suggest the applicable status of the law. When a
lawyer intentionally misleads the tribunal, as has happened here, the other
party is placed at an unfair advantage, akin to engaging in a fight with one
hand tied behind his or her back. The net effect is the absence of
fairness, which is the essence of due process. There is in fact no
meaningful access to the courts when a lawyer is permitted to misrepresent the
facts to the tribunal, especially when the other litigant is acting pro se. See
NC Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 Candor Toward tribunal
(https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/rules-of-professional-conduct/rule-33-candor-toward-the-tribunal/)
33. The removal of Jeffrey L. Miller is necessary to
protect Due Process right of the Defendant because there is no legal way to
defend against false statements by Jeffrey L. Miller when he is able to have
Judges believe in them. Currently, the Defendant is not in position to even
address the denial of PETITION by this Court because as long as Jeffrey L.
Miller is on the case the hearing cannot guarantee due process.
34. Should Jeffrey L. Miller withdrew, there is no
harm to Plaintiff because there is no pending litigation in divorce/custody
matter except for issues related to Defendant alone, such as the seizure of his
passport by the Pitt COunty Family Court and continuing harassment of Defendant
by Jeffrey L. Miller.
SHOWING OF PROPER PURPOSE - IMPOSSIBILITY OF FAIR TRIAL
35. Because Jeffrey L. Miller has made false
statements before this Court, as this Court confirmed by its 6 May 2020 Order,
therefore this Court has jurisdiction and duty to sanction him. However,
Defendant does not ask for monetary sanctions, suspension, or even disbarment,
but simply disqualification without any other consequences. The purpose is to
allow this and any other Court to properly administer justice without prejudice
against the Defendant which is currently impossible as long as Jeffrey L.
Miller represents the Plaintiff.
36. The record shows that it is not possible to find
a tribunal which would resist false statements by Jeffrey L. Miller, including
this one, therefore the only remedy is to disqualify him because there is no
expectation that he may ever not provide false statements. In fact, in his 11
May 2020 email to Defendant, Jeffrey L. Miller does not demonstrate any remorse
for his actions or even recognition of harm his conduct creates. Just the
opposite, by writing "the 25 June 2019 order is no longer effective or
operative in my opinion, and your email certainly does not fall within its
contemplation or purpose" he is already outlining new misstatements
that he will share with this or any other tribunal where he may be representing
the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court to
correct its FUNDAMENTAL AND FATAL ERROR and properly consider
disqualification of Jeffrey L. Miller from any and all litigation involving
Defendant for repeated misrepresentations to the Courts and for the reasons
stated herein because this is the only remedy to protect Defendant's due
process and allow the Defendant pro se litigant to have a meaningful access to
the courts.
Respectfully submitted, this ______ day of
__________, ____.
______________________________
Andrzej Grodner, pro se
(currently Andrew Grodner)
P.O. Box 3571
Greenville, NC 27836
252-558-3040
email: agrodnercase@gmail.com
Defendant-Appellant, pro se
VERIFICATION
The undersigned pro se
Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner, after being duly sworn, says: The contents of
the foregoing petition are true to my knowledge, except those matters stated
upon information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe them to be
true.
______________________________
Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner
Andrzej Grodner, pro se
(currently Andrew Grodner)
Pitt County, North Carolina
Sworn to and subscribed before me
This ______ (day) of _________(month), _____
(year).
___________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: ____________
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I
hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of
record by emailing and mailing a copy thereof by first-class mail, postage
paid, and addressed as follows:
Mr. Jeffrey Miller, Esq.
Miller and Audino, LLP
2510 E. 10th Street
Greenville, NC 27858
252-493-6138
email: jeff@millerandaudino.com
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee
This the _____ Day of ___________(month),
_________(year).
_________________________________
Andrzej Grodner, pro se
(currently Andrew Grodner)
P.O. Box 3571
Greenville, NC 27836
252-558-3040
email: agrodnercase@gmail.com
Defendant-Appellant, pro se
