Transcript
======================
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 January
7,
2019, in the
Civil District Court of Pitt County, Greenville,
North Carolina, before the Honorable Lee Teague, 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: Andrzej
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
DATE REQUESTED: DATE
DELIVERED:
|
Table of Contents
HEARING RESUMES IN THE SUMMERLIN CASE WITH
THE HONORABLE LEE TEAGUE, JUDGE PRESIDING
CLERK:
VONDA C. HAUSLE
BAILIFF: Oh,
yes, oh, yes, oh, yes.
This Honorable Court in the County of Pitt
is now open and sitting for the regular dispatch of business with the Honorable
Judge Lee Teague, Judge Presiding. May
God save this State and this Honorable Court.
You may be seated.
THE
COURT: Thank
you, Mr. Sheriff. Good
morning, folks. Ms. Davis.
MR.
MILLER: Good
morning, Judge.
MS.
DAVIS: Good
morning, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Good
morning, Mr. Miller.
MS.
DAVIS: (inaudible) THE
COURT: Yes,
ma’am.
MS.
DAVIS: There
you are. Nice to see
you, sir.
THE
COURT: Nice
to see you.
MS.
DAVIS: (inaudible)
THE
COURT: I
think I understand you may
have come for no reason.
MS.
DAVIS: It’s
possible, but ---
OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. MILLER:
MR.
MILLER: Judge,
I don’t know - I was
just telling the Attorney General
that I received an e-mail -
got it Sunday morning. It was offered at 10:38 Saturday night.
THE
COURT: I
think that was filed. Or
rephrase that. That
was ---
MR.
MILLER:
|
He said (inaudible) ---
|
|
THE
COURT:
|
--- given to
family court.
|
|
MR.
MILLER:
|
--- he said he had filed
|
something that – it was Saturday was the
date on the paperwork, so I knew he hadn’t filed anything, but the - the e-mail
that I - I got, that I think that was attached to, was that late Saturday night
that I got Sunday morning, and it indicated he was gonna withdraw his subpoenas
and there was a notice he was filing withdrawing his subpoenas.
THE COURT: I have - I do have ---
(background)
THE COURT: --- four notice of withdrawal
subpoenas filed this morning ---
MR. MILLER:
Okay.
THE COURT: --- along with some e-mails
that are filed, as well. That may be the late – the most late – the
most recent was 11:40 Sunday morning.
MR. MILLER:
Right.
That may be the
response to my e-mails back to
him about ---
THE COURT: All right.
It looks like
something you sent 6:30 Sunday
morning?
MR. MILLER:
|
That’s probably right.
|
|
THE COURT:
|
6:34 to be exact.
|
|
MR. MILLER:
|
Probably right.
|
|
-
|
THE COURT:
|
And Ms. Brown
sent something --
|
Sunday.
|
MR. MILLER:
|
(inaudible) a
lot of people on
|
UNKNOWN MALE:
|
I can vouch for it.
|
|
THE COURT:
|
Do we – have you seen
|
|
Mr. Grodner this morning?
|
||
MR.
MILLER:
|
I have not.
|
|
UNKNOWN
FEMALE:
morning.
|
He was in our office this
|
|
THE
COURT:
|
Yeah, I assume
it was at 8:06.
|
|
MR.
MILLER:
|
He’s usually prompt
|
|
(inaudible). I mean, I-I (inaudible) and he was here 20
minutes ahead of time. So ---
THE
COURT: All
right. I did have one
other thing - matter I could do,
if you don’t mind.
MR.
MILLER: Judge,
I don’t know - there was
a recusal issued and I - I don’t know how you want to
address that or what you want to do about that.
If you want to wait and see if he shows up?
THE
COURT:
|
Yeah.
|
|
MR.
MILLER:
|
I – I - I
thought because of
|
the way things were done and what was said
- heard today that the subpoena had to recuse (inaudible). His e-mail indicates that he intended his
subpoena to have to do with that Rule 59 motion that he filed and, so, I – I
guess the recusal issue is still before the Court.
THE
COURT: It’s
my understanding that’s
the only thing before this
particular court.
MR.
MILLER: That’s-that’s
true. That’s-
that’s what I was advised by
family court.
THE
COURT: Right.
MR.
MILLER: And
I-I don’t know how you want
to address that, if you want to wait a
little while to see if he shows up.
THE
COURT: I
have one other matter I can
do. It won’t take very long. Your name’s not on the calendar, Mr.
(inaudible), for that, so you’re not here ---
UNKNOWN
MALE: I’m
just here to harass
Mr. Miller.
THE
COURT: All
right.
9:04:15 A.M. – PAUSE IN PROCEEDING
9:25:25 A.M. – PROCEEDING RESUMES FOR THE
SUMMERLIN
CASE
WITH THE HONORABLE LEE TEAGUE, JUDGE PRESIDING
CLERK:
VONDA C. HAUSLE
STATEMENT BY MR. MILLER:
MR. MILLER:
Sir, I don’t know what you feel like
you want to have other than a statement of factual basis or what would be
factual basis from documents that are in the record, including the e-mails that
had been produced, in my statement (inaudible) the Court of-of what’s going on. Andand maybe – no matter how we do this,
Judge, it’s gonna be written about in a different way and it’s just something
we’ve gotten accustomed to (inaudible).
So, if-if-if the idea is everybody’s gonna be recused here, I just want the
record to be clear that it is not as a result of anything my client or I have
done or anything that nature and exactly what the provoking facts are - or
factors are that justify this Court to decide to recuse. But I would say on the record that I don’t
have a stake in who the judge is who is assigned to the case or hears the case
at all. I do have a number of motions
that are pending. One of them is to stop
this guy from sending e-mails, and I-I tried to get it put on this session, but
they wouldn’t put it on. And there are
other motions that have come up since then and will come up subsequently so,
you know, I-I don’t want to get in a position where I’m stuck with this guy for
three or four months at a time. And I
didn’t know what anybody’s intention would be or if there’s anybody here still
(inaudible) that feels like despite what’s happened within family court;
despite what’s happened with the chief district court judge, that they instill
(inaudible) and, of course, I-I was satisfied that you were going to hear it,
but I didn’t know what anybody else felt about that. So, that’s kind of my position and my concern
is that the order reflect accurately what happened. So, whatever the facts are that the Court
finds appropriate (inaudible), so.
THE
COURT: All
right. Well, I think I –
I’ll call 13 CVD 398. The matter of – is it Hunter Summerlin versus
Andrew Grodner? Is that right?
MR.
MILLER: Yes,
sir.
DISCUSSION AS TO MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE BRADDY:
THE
COURT: Okay. Let the record reflect
that – and, Mr. Miller, correct me if I’m
wrong – but through – over the past few months, e-mails have been sent by the
defendant, Mr. Grodner. Let it reflect
that Mr. Grodner is not present; Mr. Miller is here on behalf of his client,
who is not present; and Ms. Davis – Ms. Anna Davis, with the Assis- Attorney
General’s Office, is here based upon a subpoena that had been issued for Judge
Galen Braddy. Good morning, Ms. Davis.
MS.
DAVIS: Good
morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: The -
over the past few months,
it’s my understanding that the defendant
had been sending numerous e-mails to Mr. Miller; to Ms. Brown, of family court
staff, which is assigned to Judge Braddy; and possibly even some to Judge
Braddy expressing deep concerns in, I believe, questioning the competency of
Judge Braddy, as well as posting a blog questioning those things in
public. Based upon those – also, that
Mr. Grodner had continued to intimate that he felt he would not be able to
receive a fair trial; that Judge Braddy should recuse himself from hearing the
case; and then, I believe, that culminated at one point, in possibly October,
when this hearing was set for a motion to be heard by another judge as to the
recusal of Judge Braddy. Mr. Miller,
does that accurately sum up where we are as of today?
MR.
MILLER: Judge,
that – that’s a correct
recitation of the background
facts, I believe.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
MILLER: In
particular, Mr. Grodner has
made statements in his e-mails
that ---
THE
COURT: Now,
let me – let me – if you –
if you want to, at this point, make a
statement as to the facts that – any that I’ve missed or specific ones
that-that the Court should entertain, feel free to do – if you’re ready to do
that now.
MR.
MILLER: Yes,
sir. Thank you. In his
e-mails, Judge, Mr.
Grodner has made statements that Court officials are – in Pitt County – are
untrustworthy. He’s made disparaging
statements about the Pitt County court system.
He has circumvented numerous statements about the plaintiff’s
counsel. He’s alleged that the
plaintiff’s counsel controls the family court - or the - the Pitt County court
system; that I’ve lied to the Court and the Court accepts my lies as the truth;
and he’s made numerous other statements that I have, in my opinion, call
bizarre types of statements about court systems, officials, and me. He repeatedly sends e-mails to the family
court administrators about his position; he sends e-mails to me. Those e-mails show that he’s copying them to
various entities or locations, including a personal blog in which he recites
his version of things in his e-mails, posts that to the blog. His blog is advertised as his effort to, in
essence, vindicate the rights of fathers in divorce cases. I’m not using exact words from the blog, but
I think the site is indicated in some of his emails. And in that, he also seeks donations for
himself by virtue of what he’s doing is he feels is some public service to
other people in his position. I do not
believe that there is any basis that any judge who has been involved in this
case has a bias or a prejudice, other than is created by – and perhaps
intentionally by Mr. Grodner. I do not
believe that there is a basis for the recusal of any judge because they could
not hear the facts and render a fair and just decision on the facts under the
law. I do not believe that there are any
relationships or other issues, or any communications or contacts from any
indication in the record that would indicate Ms. Brown, Judge Braddy, or I have
done anything improper with regard to this case, or the handling of this case,
or the calendaring of this case. He’s
made numerous accusations about how the case is calendared or noticed. Judge, we – on behalf of the plaintiff, we
came here without a stake in this motion other than as it impacts and effects
the court system and the court officials, in particular, people of high
integrity and purpose here in Pitt County that Mr. Grodner disparages and
defames. And, so, we aren’t seeking the
recusal of any judge in the case, but by the same token, we don’t resist the
Court taking such actions as will properly and appropriately assure - to the
best we can because it does not appear that anything will ever assure it – but
assures the appearance and perception of propriety and responsibility by
whoever hears the facts in this case.
And, so, we certainly will comply with whatever the Court’s decision is
about who hears the case. I would ask
that the matter, in terms of pending motions or things that are ongoing, that -
that the matter be given some priority so that we can dispose of that. So, the Court knows there is still pending a
petition for discretionary review and a notice of appeal to the North Carolina
Supreme Court in this case concerning an issue that Mr. Grodner brought up that
the North Carolina Board of Appeals has not yet decided – or rendered a
decision about discretionary review or the appeal.
I do not believe that that usurps the
jurisdiction of – of this Court on this issue – or these issues or stays the
jurisdiction of this Court in that matter.
Mr. Grodner has frequently made statements about what the authority of
anybody is and it varies, depending upon what the issue is before this Court is
my understanding of the law with regard to interrogatory matters, in
particular. And, so, I-I-I guess that is
to say we’ll – whatever the Court decides is fine. We would like it to-to be given some priority
in terms of scheduling, given any judge in the case, so that we can move the
matter along appropriately. Thank you.
THE
COURT: Thank
you, Mr. Miller.
Ms. Davis, would you like to be
heard?
MS.
DAVIS: No,
Your Honor.
THE
COURT: All
right. Would you like to
me - for me to – would it be helpful or
necessary for me to rule on your motion to quash, even with the withdrawal?
MS.
DAVIS: No,
Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
MILLER: I-I
would like the order to
reflect the fact - the sequence of events
with regard to the subpoena and the withdrawal.
And, Judge, I’m - I’m happy to take a stab at preparing the order when
I’m available, but if the Court feels you ought to prepare the actual
(inaudible)
THE
COURT: If
you would ---
(background)
MS.
DAVIS: The
motion to quash. THE COURT: I
think – I think she’s
referring more to the recusal. (inaudible)
MR.
MILLER:
fact that he – he ---
|
Then I would
also refer to the
|
|
THE
COURT:
withdrew ---
|
Right. Issued and
then
|
|
MR.
MILLER:
|
--- issued subpoenas and
|
everybody filed objections and the motion
to quash. She entered the case; he
didn’t notify her, didn’t do whatever; and she came here (inaudible); he filed
his withdrawal this morning. That
procedural ---
THE
COURT: If-if
you – I’m not gonna ask
you to prepare the order. I think I would like to do that. But if you would maybe shoot Ms. Brown a – or
Ms. (inaudible) – whichever you deem appropriate - a bullet point of the facts
that you just stated.
MR.
MILLER: Okay. Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: Not-not
in order form, just –
you know, just in a document ---
MR.
MILLER: All
right.
THE
COURT: --- so
that I don’t have to go
and necessarily list all - all
that ---
MR.
MILLER: Yes,
sir.
THE
COURT:
That would be helpful.
|
--- and do all
the reading.
|
|
MR.
MILLER:
|
I - I have a
couple matters
|
today, and I may even solve a case that
was set for three days. I may - if I
don’t, I’ll be on my case for the next three days. So, is the end of the week okay to get the
bullet points to you?
THE
COURT: That
would be fine. I think –
I think I actually have an office day Friday, so.
MR.
MILLER:
that to you by - by Friday.
|
Okay. I’ll-I’ll try
and get
|
THE
COURT:
|
Okay.
|
MR.
MILLER:
Ms. Davis, as well.
|
And I’ll –
I’ll send a copy to
|
THE
COURT:
|
All right.
|
MR.
MILLER:
|
I haven’t really been issuing
|
the subpoenas in that. But he indicated that the subpoenas are
related to a Rule 59 motion that he’s filed, and I’ve indicated to the Court
that I believe that’s a frivolous motion; that it-it won’t have a basis. So, I’m not sure that those subpoenas need to
be valid until we determine the validity of the motion itself.
THE
COURT: Let
me also indicate that
Mr. Grodner was present today at 8:06 due
to some filings that he made. It – I
think it’s obvious to the Court that he knew of today’s court date by filing
these prior to the scheduled time for the court date; that the Court also
waited until nine – approximately 9:25 before we started any – started this
proceeding, as well, so.
MR.
MILLER: Okay. I’ll – I’ll tend to all
that, then.
THE
COURT: All
right. Thank you.
Ms. Davis, anything else for you?
MS.
DAVIS: No,
Your Honor.
THE
COURT: All
right. Thank you very much
for being here.
MS.
DAVIS: Thank
you.
THE
COURT: Hope
you have a safe trip home.
MS.
DAVIS: Thanks.
MR.
MILLER: One
way or the other ---
9:39:21 A.M. – END OF PROCEEDING
[END OF RECORDING]
[END OF TRANSCRIPT]
