On June 1st. 2017 I file stamped in Wake County Superior Court my Motion to Dismiss. In my Motion to Dismiss I also included with my defenses a Writ of Mandamus, for the people who does not know what a Writ of Mandamus is I will try and explain.
A Writ of Mandamus is a ruling by the Court from someone like myself who has been done wrong by the North Carolina Department of Insurance. This Writ forces the Department of Insurance to actually do and perform the job that they are already are empowered to do to begin with. This Writ just forces them to do it. It also just states openly that the Court thinks that the governmental body is not doing the job as it is supposed to do in accordance with the laws of our State. This was submitted to the Court by myself thru the Clerk of Courts and file stamped.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
WAKE COUNTY 17 CVS 003831
DALLAS MCCLAIN; LYNETTE THOMPSON;
CARL VALENTINE; PREMIER JUDICIAL
CONSULANTS, LLC; A North Carolina
Limited Liability Company; NC. BAIL
ACADEMY, LLC. a North Carolina Limited
Liability Company; and Cannon Surety, LLC
a North Carolina Limited Liability Company;
PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT RONALD PIERCE
-V- PIEDMONT DISASTER SERVICES LLC
MOTION TO DISMISS
MARK WAYNE CARTRET, NORTH STATE
HOLDING GROUP, LLC, a North Carolina
Limited Liability Company, formally known as
Judicial Associates, LLC, a North Carolina
Limited Liability Company, also known as AM;
And formally known as Cattlemen’s Surety;
RONALD PIERCE; PIEDMONT DISASTER SERVICES
LLC. A North Carolina Limited Liability Company;
CLYDE ROBERT BRAWLEY JR; AND KEN ROBOL
NOW COMES the above Defendant Ronald Pierce and Piedmont Disaster Services LLC. Pro Se, hereby responds to the Verified Complaint of Plaintiffs, Dallas McClain, Lynette Thompson, Carl Valentine, Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC, NC Bail Academy, LLC and Cannon Surety, LLC (Plaintiffs) as follows:
(Motion to dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6))
Defendant moves this Court, pursuant to NCGS 1A-1 Rule 12 (b) (6), to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims due to failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s fail to state a claim for emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage because the Verified Complaint reveals the absence of facts sufficient to establish such claims. The act of this court to even consider allowing this case to come into court after my Motion to Dismiss, would exact a stiff price on this Defendant, since I live in Charlotte, NC.
2. I bring the courts attention to Sopko v. Stancil, 2015 NCBC 14, 14CVS9047, 14, To state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a claimant must allege that the adverse party (1) intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct that was (2) intended to cause and did cause (3) severe emotional distress. Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C 437, 453 (1981); Wilson v. Pearce, 105 N.C. App. 107, 115 (1992). A claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires a party to allege (1) the defendant negligently engaged in conduct (2) that could foreseeably cause the party severe emotional distress. Since the Plaintiffs’ have yet reached any form or fashion to the legal requirements set forth by NC law then this case must be dismissed on its merits alone.
3. Claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress both require that the claimant allege that they have suffered severe emotional distress. See Waddle v. Sparks, 331 N.C. 73, 83 (1992). The Courts of this State have held that severe emotional distress “means any emotional or mental disorder, such as for example, neurosis, psychosis, chronic depression, phobia, or any other type of severe and disabling emotional or mental condition which may be generally recognized and diagnosed by professionals trained to do so. No proof of any type has been submitted to the Court for this claim to be heard. See, Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics, 327 N.C. at 304. Allegations that fail to identify a recognized and diagnosable mental or emotional disorder are not sufficient. See also Pierce v. Atl. Group, Inc. 219 N.C. App. 19, 32-33 (2012) (finding that an allegation of “serious on off the job stress, severely affecting his relationship with his wife and family members” was insufficient to allege a claim for infliction of emotional distress).
4. Accordingly the Plaintiffs’ have failed to allege the necessary elements of claims for both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
5. If the Plaintiffs’ do pursue their claims under the conditions set forth and they are indeed asking for this court to include a demand for mental health complaints, then it will, in accordance with the laws of North Carolina, affect their gun license permits, And of course their Bail Bonding License of all types in accordance with NCGS 58-71. I bring the attention to the Court that NCGS 14-415.13. Which states as follows: And person or entity who is given an original or photocopied release form as described in NCGS 14-415.13 (a) (5), must promptly disclose to the sheriff any records concerning the mental health or capacity of the applicant who signed the form and authorized the release of records. The sheriff must forward this request and release for records within 10 days of receiving the application materials. So I reiterate paragraph 2 in as much as if the Plaintiffs’ have indeed had so much emotional distress that they did in fact seek a physician or therapist, and the Plaintiffs’ have shown no proof whatsoever. And if they in fact had any evidence whatsoever to these false statements, then the Plaintiffs’ must surrender not only their gun permits but their Bail Bondsmen license of all types as well to the correct legal entities of the State.
SPECIAL DAMAGES & PRESUMED DAMAGES
6. Defendant fully incorporates by reference the all of the defenses above as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
7. Plaintiffs’ have failed to plead properly for special damages or otherwise to plead damages required to sustain a claim for liable or any other defamation, which is hereby pleaded in barring of any recovery whatsoever for the Plaintiffs’.
8. Plaintiffs’ have never produced a single accountable statement from a professional certified accountant let alone from anyone else are made up lies, and or pleading’s and or proof requirements for financial loss AS REQUIRED BY LAW in stating these damages. Regardless of whether they sought in the context of a defamation suit or some other context. I infer to Lieb v. Mayer , 244 N.C. 613, 94 S.E. 2d. 658 (1956). In defamation suit or some other context, North Carolina law requires that claims for libel per quod be supported by allegations and proof of special or pecuniary damages. In Flake v. Greensboro News Co., 212 N.C. 780, 195 S.E. 55 (1938) States as follows: Actual damages are intended to compensate a defamation plaintiff for injury to his or her reputation and standing in the community. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323, 350 (1974). The Supreme Court has held that although the plaintiff need not prove the actual dollar value of such injury, The First Amendment REQUIRES that “all awards must be supported by competent evidence concerning the injury”
9. Presumed damages are damages that can be assumed to have occurred and which may be recovered without proof. At common law, where words were actionable per se, the Plaintiffs’ was entitled to such damages as a matter of law. A Plaintiff could rest his case on proof of the publication of a defamatory falsehood alone, without undertaking to prove actual injury. I again refer to Flake v. Greensboro News Co. 212 N.C. 780, 785, 195 S.E. 55, 59 (1938). The Supreme Court however, modified this common law rule by its opinions in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974) and Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. 472 U.S. 749 (1985). As the North Carolina Court of Appeals has noted, Gertz focused on the status of the plaintiff and defendant, whereas Dun and Bradstreet focused on the content of the speech at issue. Neil Grading and Construction Co. Inc. v. Lingafelt, 168 N.C App. 36, 43, 606 S.E. 2d 734, 739 (2005). In Dun and Bradstreet, the Court held that speech about “matters of concern” is entitled to greater First Amendment protection than speech about matters of purely private interest. Dun and Bradstreet, 472 U.S. at 758-59. Consequently, when a defamation claim is asserted by a private plaintiff (i.e. a plaintiff who is neither a public official or public figure) and the publication at issue deals with a matter of private concern only, a State Court may permit the plaintiff to recover presumed damages upon proof that the publication in question is defamatory, is false, and was published with a requisite-degree of fault. Neil Grading & Construction, Inc. v. Lingafelt, 168 N.C. App. 36, 43, 606 S.E. 2d. 734, 739 (2005). On the other hand, when a private plaintiff sue over a publication that deals with a matter of public concern, as in this Defendant’s position, the Gertz standard applies, and the Plaintiffs’ may not recover presumed damages unless he or she proves “actual malice”, that is, that the publication not only was false and defamatory, but also that the Defendants either knew that it was false or reckless disregarded indications that it probably was false, which is not the case here. ID. Rodney A. Smolla, Law of Defamation. As explained above and throughout this brief the contents of my Website N.C. Advocate. Net at issue in this case clearly relate to a matter of public concern, nor has the Plaintiffs’ shown any evidence of “actual malice” therefor, the Plaintiffs’ would and should not be entitled to recover presumed nor any other damages even if the Plaintiffs’ were able to prove that the Website were false and the Defendants were negligent in publishing it. This is as it is stated here, not the case.
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
10. Defendant fully incorporates by reference the all of the defenses above as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
11. Any actions by Defendants were not so extreme and or so outrageous and do not rise to the level of an actionable claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
12. The article in Exhibit E noted that, “I said that Mr. McClain was a liar, has made lies” If as is stated here by my own Exhibits shows that Mr. McClain actually lied to anyone and everyone, than there are absolutely no legal bounds that Mr. McClain and the rest of the Plaintiffs’ can claim. I bring the courts attention to Andrews, 109 N.C App. at 274, 426 S.E. at 432. “Which states “To be actionable  a defamatory statement must be FALSE and must be communicated to a person or persons other than the person defamed”?
13. MY First Amendment Rights to Free Speech. I infer to Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 16, 110 S. Ct. 2695, 111 L. ED. 2d. 1, 16 (1990). Which states; “if a statement cannon reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual, it cannot be subject to a defamation suit. ID. At 20, 111 L. ED 2d at 19, quoting Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 50, 108 S. Ct. 876, 99 L. ED. 2d. 603, 608 (1999) [***12] (citing Milkovich for the proposition that statements of OPINION relating to matters of public concern which do not contain provable false connotations are constitutionally protected). Rhetorical hyperbole and expressions of OPINION not asserting provable facts are protected speech. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20, 111 L. ED. 2d. at 19. A statement must state or imply a defamatory fact to be actionable. ID, at 18, 111 L. ED. 2d. at 17. In Greenbelt Coop. Pub. Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 90 S. Ct. 1537, 26 L. ED. 2d. 6 (197), a local newspaper published certain articles charactering a real estate developer’s [***13] negotiation position as “blackmail”. The Supreme Court stated that a reader of the article would recognize that the word “was no more than a rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered the [developer’s] negotiating position extremely unreasonable”. ID, at 14, 26, L. ED. 2d. at 15. Protection for this type of speech, the Milkovich Court explained, “Provides assurance that public debate will not suffer for lack of “imaginative expression” or rhetorical hyperbole, which has traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20, 111 L. ED 2d. at 19. Quoting Falwell, 485 U.S. at 53-55, 99 L. ED. 2d. at 48. In determining whether a statement can be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual, courts look to the circumstances in which the statements are made. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 21, 111 L. ED. 2d. at 19. I also cite Biospherics, Inc. v. Forbes, Inc., 151 F. 3d. 180, 184[*540] (4th. Cir. 1998]. Specifically, we consider whether the language used is “loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language”, as well as “general tenor of the article”. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 21, 111 L. ED. 2d. at 19 [***14] Biospherics, Inc. 151 F. 3d. at 184.
14. Defendant fully incorporates by reference the all of the defenses above as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
15. Any emotional distress experienced by Plaintiffs, which is expressly denied, and if there ever was any emotional distress to begin with was not so severe that a reasonable person could not be expected to endure it.
16. Plaintiffs’ were in fact in a position of emotional distress, then I ask the Court why they have not posted any facts from either a professional, or other standards to formulate a position to be actionable. Yet they have not. The Plaintiffs only allege these facts. This Defendant does not wish to wait until the Plaintiffs or for their attorney to come up with anymore lies to try and defend their complaint positions. Also if these Plaintiffs’ were in a state of emotional distress, this would in fact raise questions on the licenses of each individual with the NCDOI or whether or not these Plaintiffs’ are in strict caliber to retain their license status. Nor have any individual Plaintiff surrendered their license for stated cause. Hence no actionable complaint can be issued by their attorney of record.
17. Defendant fully incorporates by reference the all of the defenses above as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
18. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were not caused by Defendants but by the acts or omissions of another person’s or entity for which Defendants are not responsible. defendants reserve the right to seek leave to assert third party claims against such responsible parties when appropriate.
19. Defendant fully incorporates by reference the all of the defenses above as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
20. Plaintiffs’ have intentionally broken many laws of North Carolina in the realms of and in the Bail Bonding Businesses. Through the guise of public interest. I will bring to bear the email thread marked Defendant Exhibit 1, between Defendants Mark Cartret and his attorney Steve McCloskey in reference to, 11 N.C.A.C. 13.0541 (b) (3). No recruiting at Pre-licensing. Plaintiffs Dallas McClain, A Bail Bond instructor at Plaintiffs” NC Bail Academy, also known as his girlfriend, Lynette Thompson or one of her aliases, owner of Plaintiffs’ NC Bail Academy have from the onset has recruited pre-licensed bail agents from the classes of that they collectively hold around the State. Which states as follows: “As far as a meeting Wednesday, there is nothing pressing requiring a sit down. The pipeline is filling. We are bringing on new folks almost daily. We snagged about five good ones out of the Greensboro licensing class this past weekend. I think Beth and Michelle are close to getting their test letters”.
21. I bring to the Courts attention to Exhibit 7. The new and or renewal, annual and or bi-annual applications of Dallas McClain, whom on record through the Verified Complaint states that he is the majority owner of Premier Judicial and Cannon Surety. Noting each application has been done under oath with the penalty of perjury. Of which makes each and every application an affidavit in its own right. As stated on “Section 4- Applicant’s certification and Attestation” Which states as follows: 1. I hereby certify that, under penalty of perjury, all of the information submitted in this application and attachments is true and complete. I am aware that submitting false information and omitting pertinent or material information in connection with the application is grounds for license revocation or denial of the license and may be subject me to civil or criminal penalties. I refer back to Section 1 of the application under license number 12518873 Dallas McClain- NCDOI1022828. I am in reference to item 6. Of Section 1 which clearly states the following: are you currently in a business association or agreement with a person who has been disqualified pursuant to NCGS 58-71 (a) (13) ? An answer posted “NO” by Dallas McClain. This alone is an admission of illegal association of Dallas McClain and Carl Valentine as stated before in numerous other Exhibits.
22. Defendant fully incorporates by reference the all of the defenses above as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
23. The legal definition of “UNCLEAN HANDS” in Wikipedia, states the following: a blemished record, a record of proven fault (as in the revocation of Plaintiff Carl Valentine’s license in 2012 by the North Carolina Department of Insurance and by Virginia as well), equitable defense, improper history, personal deficiencies, personal problems, problems in the past, tainted past. As so stated from the Exhibits submitted above and below.
24. I now bring to the attention of the court by the Plaintiffs’ own pleadings that there were 92 complaints against Dallas McClain and Cannon Surety in their own rights. “92” An absolutely remarkable number of complaints against the same person and Surety Company. As stated before and forever after, I personally have made no such complaints to the North Carolina Department of Insurance.
25. I bring to the court attention to the license of Plaintiff Carl Valentine, looked up this day of 26 May 2017. Marked as Defendants Exhibit 2. Please note the day the license was revoked “9/13/2012” by the North Carolina Department of Insurance. This license was again denied on “6/08/2016” after Plaintiff Carl valentine made application to renew his license.
26. Next I bring to the courts attention, 2 (TWO) contracts dated 20 Feb. 2015 signed by Carl Valentine. Which clearly shows involvement in and around the other Plaintiffs, Dallas McClain, Lynette Thompson, NC Bail Academy, Cannon Surety, and Premier Judicial? I have marked these contracts Exhibit 3 and 4 respectfully.
27. I next bring to the courts attention to Plaintiffs’ Premier Judicial Consultants, LLC’s Operating Agreement, on page 22, signed by Defendant Robert Brawley, Plaintiffs’ Dallas McClain, Lynette Thompson, and Carl Valentine. Marked as Exhibit 5 respectfully. Which clearly shows the association of all of the Plaintiffs’ and legal premise of a conspiracy to defraud, not only the general public but the governing body of the North Carolina Department of Insurance?
28. Next I submit as Exhibit 6 respectfully, The Table of Contents and Business Operations of Cannon Surety. Which clearly defines each and every role that each of the Plaintiffs’ criminal conspiracy to defraud, on page 2. First paragraph states: “Cannon Surety LLC. is the cumulative brainchild of four experienced and accomplished professionals with a common vision”? On page 7 of Exhibit 6 on the fourth paragraph down, which specifically states as follows: “Another major advantage that we will have over other Surety companies is direct access to newly licensed as well as existing bondsmen through NC BAIL ACADEMY? The NC Bail Academy is a North Carolina Department of Insurance approved and certified pre-licensing and continuing education school owned and operated by two of our companies principals. Our company’s affiliation with the school will provide us with a unique opportunity to recruit the best and the brightest in the industry”. On page 26 last paragraph under the heading “Management Team” Carl Valentine is a career military engineer. He has over two decades of experience in bail bonding in NC. And surrounding States. He has extensive experience with several surety companies at different levels, including recruiting. He currently has over 35 Agents statewide”. On page 27 it clearly states all other active members of this criminal conspiracy. Plaintiffs Lynette Thompson, Dallas McClain, Tim Mathis and Defendant Robert Brawley. I also note on every page of Exhibit 6 it clearly printed Copyright 2014. All articles refrain from saying that the “Manager Carl Valentine” is not allowed to even be in the Bail Bonding Business in any capacity as stated below.
29. I next bring to the attention of the court NCGS 58-71-40, which states as follows: (a) No person shall act in the capacity of a bail bondsman, surety bondsman, or runner or perform any of the functions, duties, or powers prescribed for professional bondsman, or runners under this Article unless that person is qualified and licensed under this Article. I specifically bring the attention of the court to NCGS 58-71-80. Sub-par. 13. Which states as follows: “For entering into any business association or agreement or agreement with any person who is at that time found by the Commissioner to be in violation of any of the bail bond laws of this State, or who has been in any manner “DISQUALIFIED” under the bail bond laws of this State, whereby the person has any direct or indirect financial interest in the bail bond business of the licensee or applicant” With all Exhibits produced by me Exhibits 1 thru 6, it clearly shows a criminal conspiracy to defraud.
30. NCGS 58-71-80. Grounds for denial: item 14, states as follows: For knowingly aiding and abetting others to evade or violate the provisions of this Article. 14 (a) having any professional license denied, suspended, or revoked in this State or any other jurisdiction for causes substantially similar to those listed in this subsection. Again I state the Plaintiffs’ have no right to bring suit to begin with let alone have any legal standing on their complaint.
31. The Defendants are more than happy to call each and every Bail Bond Agent that is under contract “the umbrella” of Cannon Surety to testify to their each relationship and capacity working with and for Carl Valentine as a Manager of Cannon Surety. Of which is exactly what I will do if the court deems it necessary to continue this case. There are approximately 260 Bail Bond Agents under contract with Cannon Surety and the Plaintiffs’.
32. I now bring to the courts attention of a letter and or complaint by Lekeysha Jenkins to the NCDOI Deputy Commissioner Angela Hatcher and Steve Bryant which again clearly shows Carl Valentine’s involvement with All American Bail Bonds and Dallas McClain, Lynette Thompson in 2013 and 2014 when everybody involved knew that Carl Valentine’s licenses were not only suspended but completely revoked by the NCDOI and the State of Virginia as well. There are many more letters, emails, complaints that exist and are just too numerous to list here in this pleading for the court. All letters and complaints that I have and can be verified. Unlike this Verified Complaint brought by the Plaintiffs. I have so marked as Exhibit 8.
33. For these reasons alone this complaint should be immediately be dismissed. But I will add more.
34. Defendant fully incorporates by reference the all of the defenses above as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
35. The Plaintiffs’ are not entitled to pursue or recover presumed or punitive damages. Nor are the Plaintiffs’ entitled to Compensatory damages of any kind for libel per se.
36. Plaintiffs’ are not eligible for a award of attorney’s fees. The Plaintiffs’ complaint neither alleges any actual facts nor purports to state any claim that would support an award of attorney fees under North Carolina law; therefore, defendants are entitled to summary judgement on this and all issues stated within this brief.
37. Defendant fully incorporates by reference the all of the defenses above as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
38. The injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs’ would be unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs’ ask the court to impose three types of prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief’s. The Plaintiffs’ want the court to order the Defendants (1) to cease publication of the “libelous statements” on my Website and or elsewhere; (2) to remove all content in association with the Plaintiffs’ permanently and forever. And 3) to notify everyone that all statements were false.
39. As explained above the Plaintiffs’ are not entitled to any relief of any kind, but even “if” the Plaintiffs were able to carry the heavy burdens required to prove both liability and damages, the injunctive relief the Plaintiffs seeks would be beyond the powers of this Court to impose because such relief would constitute an impermissible prior restraint on speech in violation of both the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1-14 of the North Carolina Constitution. See, Kramer v. Thompson, 947 F. 2d. 666 (3d. Cir. 1991) (Prior restraints on libel are prohibited by Article 1-7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution which, like Article 1-14 of the North Carolina Constitution, provides that speech and press may never be restrained.) Robert D. Sack, Sack on Defamation 10.6.1 (3d ed. 2006) Rule that defamation cannot be enjoined is venerable and near-absolute.) SID. Dillon Chevrolet-Oldsmobile-Pontiac, INC. v. Sullivan, 251 Neb. 722, 559 N.W. 2d. 740 (1997) (reviewing history of “no injunction” principle and limited exceptions to it).
40. Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote: ” The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether defendant was a trained journalist”, While the Supreme Court has previously observed that the lines between traditional news media and native web content have become blurred, this was the first time that federal appellate court has essentially said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to First Amendment. When coupled to the facts of “public concern” this leaves the court to have only one option and that is to dismiss the case with prejudice against the Plaintiffs’.
41. But we collectively all knew that. The purpose of the free press clause of the First Amendment was to keep an eye on people in power and maintain a check on corruption. As I fully state here for and against the Plaintiffs’.
42. Speech doesn’t get much freer than blogs and comments on website, and long established principals protecting opinion and hyperbole help to keep it that way. In reference to Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group. The Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to toss out libel claims against Cox, despite her assertions that her targets engaged in corruption, fraud, deceit, money laundering, harassment and illegal activity. She “COX” called them “evil doers” and “thugs”. The appellate court concluded that Cox’s posts were so outrageous that no one would take them seriously and these hyperbolic attacks couldn’t be the basis of a lawsuit. This decision was again based on the landmark Supreme Court case of Gertz v. Welch.
43. The defendant fully incorporates by reference the all of the defenses above as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
44. NCGS 1D-15. States as follows: Standards for recovery of punitive damages. Punitive damages may be awarded “ONLY” if the claimant proves that the defendant is liable for commentary damages and that the following aggravating factors was present and was related to the injury for which compensatory damages were awarded. (1) Fraud requires intent to deceive. I have never intended deceive anyone, (2) Malice, implies a “sense of personal ill will” that causes the defendant to perform an unlawful act. I have never had ill will against the Plaintiffs’ I am just demanding the NCDOI to act upon its 92 complaints filed against the Plaintiffs”. (3) Willful and wanton conduct means ” the conscious and intentional disregard of and indifference to the rights and safety of others, which the defendant knows or should know, is reasonably likely to result in injury, damages, or other harm. No such action has taken place by me.
45. The claim must prove the existence of an aggravating factor by Clear and Convincing Evidence. No such evidence has been produced in neither this nor any other complaint.
46. Punitive damages shall NOT be awarded against a person solely on the basis of vicarious liability for the acts or omissions of another.
47. Since the Plaintiffs’ have given nothing in this form on their complaint then this complaint must be immediately withdrawn.
48. Defendant fully incorporates by reference the all of the defenses above as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
49. A civil conspiracy, however atrocious, does not per se give to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been committed resulting in damage. There have not been any damages listed in this complaint. Nor a cause of this action stated as informed above.
50. A bare agreement among two or more persons to harm a third person cannot injure the latter unless and until acts are actually performed pursuant to the agreement. Since no agreement has ever been present their cannot be civil conspiracy the TRULY exists between the Defendants and myself. Unlike the civil conspiracy that TRULY exists between the Plaintiffs’. Therefor it is the acts done and not the conspiracy to do them which should be regarded as the essence of civil action.
51. By its nature, tort liability arising from conspiracy presupposes that the conspirator is legally capable of committing the tort, that he or she owes a duty to the Plaintiffs’ recognized by law and is potentially subject to liability for breach of that duty. (Allied Equipment Corp. v. Litten Saudi Arabia Ltd. Supra, 7 Cal. 4th at 510-11.) I state here and now that I owe the Plaintiffs nothing.
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT’S OR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH NCGS 75-1.
52. Defendant fully incorporates by reference the all of the defenses above as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
53. I bring the courts attention to NCGS 75-1. Of which reads as follows: Combination in restraint of trade illegal. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in the State of North Carolina is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person or corporation who shall make any such contract expressly or shall knowingly be a party thereto by implication, or who shall engage in any such conspiracy shall be guilty of a Class H felony. (1913, c. 41, s. 1; 2559; 1981. C. 764, s. 2.).
54. I then bring the courts attention to NCGS 75.1.1. (b). for purposes of this section, “COMMERCE” includes all business activities, however dominated, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED BY A MEMBER OF A LEARNED PROFESSION. With this section of the law as stated the Plaintiffs’ have no rights whatsoever to bring civil action on this claim. No claim and or complaint have ever been taken in accordance with the law to the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office for review and or action.
55. In accordance with the North Carolina Department of Insurance all Bail Bondsmen, Surety Company’s must be regulated and supervised by the State This also means that a Bail Bondsmen is of the learned class. Hence means that a Bail Bond Professional of any type or bounds is not allowed to bring in NCGS 75.1.1 in as much as they are not covered by the law. I reference 29 CFR 541. 301. Learned professionals. As stated in Exhibit 9 respectfully.
56. Apparently the attorney for the Plaintiffs’ just thinks he knows the laws when in fact in accordance with the law as posted he does not. In such I seek sanctions against this attorney for fraudulent claims assessed against me and the other Defendants. I will bolster this claim in the following paragraph for frivolous lawsuits.
57. Defendant fully incorporates by reference the all of the defenses above as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
58. I herby claim that the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs’ has not performed any pre-suit investigation whatsoever as required in accordance with the laws of North Carolina and the NC Bar Rules.
59. Defendant reserves the right to bring a counter claim for FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT against attorney and said Plaintiffs’ in this complaint.
60. The legal definition of a Frivolous Lawsuit is as stated: Frivolous lawsuits are those filed by a party or attorney who is aware they are without merit, because of a lack of supporting legal argument or factual basis for the claims. I infer to Rule 3.1 of the NC Bar.
61. The Ethical Prohibition against Pursuit of Frivolous Claims and the Lawyer’s Duty to investigate. Rules of professional conduct in almost every jurisdiction contain a prohibition against the pursuit of fatally deficient claims and contentions pattered after Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1. Model Rule 3.1. Meritorious Claims or Contentions, provides: “a lawyer shall not bring or defend or continue with the prosecution or defense of a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless after reasonable inquiry the lawyer has a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for a extension, modification, or reversal of existing law”.
62. Lawyers’ Duty of Reasonable Inquiry; Model Rule 3.1 also requires that the lawyers’ conclusion that there is a non-frivolous basis for the claim or contention be obtained after reasonable inquiry. Accordingly, lawyers are obligated to undertake some form of preliminary investigation into “CLIENT” intended claim and contentions. Lawyers cannot avoid this obligation simply by asserting in a pleading that allegations are being made “upon information and belief”. This one sentence has been repeated more than 14 FOURTEEN different times in the pleadings from the attorney of record G. Grady Richardson Jr.
63. I contend that the attorney of record has had no such investigation, has no intention with this complaint except to harass and coercion of the Defendants for printing and posting the truth online. Except for the fact that the Plaintiffs’ paid the attorney of record up front $ 35,000.00 to bring this FRIVOLOUS complaint.
64. Frivolous lawsuits waste time, money, and judicial resources, and fines and or sanctions may be imposed upon a party or their attorney for filing such a claim. I am so asking the court for such sanctions at this time.
65. Frivolous lawsuits may be filed for purpose of harassment or coercion, such as to coerce the defendant into paying more or accepting less money than is rightfully due. As in this occurrence with Defendant Brawley who is in a bad partnership with the Plaintiffs.
66. They may also be filed due to lack of due diligence by and attorney in investigating a client’s claim. With my limited Exhibits shown in this brief of which I know for a fact that another attorney has that represent the Plaintiffs’. Because I handed them over in a deposition demanded by attorney Mark Bibbs prior to this lawsuit.
67. I personally sent an email to the attorney of record and demanded that this lawsuit be immediately dismissed because it was nothing but stated full of outright lies by the Plaintiffs’ Of which nothing was ever commented by the attorney of record, or I was just outright ignored by the attorney G. Grady Richardson Jr. I present emails from the inception of the lawsuit being handed to my by the Sheriff’s department. So marked Exhibit 10.
68. I am so stating for the courts attention for sanctions, and punitive action as well.
69. Also at this time I wish to make a statement of record of the fact that ATTORNEY G. Grady Richardson Jr. has failed to inform me properly in all communications of any type or kind because of my position that I am representing myself on this action. In direct violation in accordance with the NC Bar Rules, I have been left out of any communications directly from G. Grady Richardson Jr. on the Global settlement discussions as well as other discussions; I have to hear about the communications thru the other defendants. Which again is directly against the NC Bar Rules? I have included a copy of all emails in connection with Mr. Grady in Exhibit 10. Again I am seeking sanctions as determined by the court.
70. Defendant reserves the right to counter claim and will do so immediately if Motion to Dismiss is denied.
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
71. MANDAMUS: (“We Command”) is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court, to any government subordinate court, or public authority-to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing) and which is the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision.
72. Legal Requirements; The applicant pleading for the Writ of Mandamus to be enforced should be able to show that he or she has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or refrain from doing the specific act. The duty sought to be enforced must have two qualities: It must be a duty of public nature and the duty must be imperative and should not be discretionary. Furthermore, Mandamus will typically not be granted if adequate relief can be obtained by some other means, such as appeal.
73. In North Carolina State Courts, Mandamus is authorized as one of the Extraordinary Writs, under Rule 22 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
74. This Defendant is asking this court for an action on a Writ of Mandamus against the NC Department of Insurance, specifically Deputy Commissioner Shane Guyant, Director of Criminal Investigation of the North Carolina department of Insurance, for them to actually do their respective jobs on the completion of the 92 complaint’s associated with this complaint.
75. Whereas if the North Carolina Department of Insurance had actually performed the functions as prescribed by law then these Plaintiffs would actually be criminally charged and there would be no lawsuit filed by the Plaintiffs’.
76. I submit to the court Exhibit 11 numerous emails (of which I literally have hundreds of different emails) inquiring as to just exactly why the department of Insurance is and has been deliberately stalling and not completing their investigation into Plaintiffs’., it’s not that the Department of Insurance does not have enough proof, that has been taken care of, this so called investigation by the DOI has been going on for over (2) TWO long years.
77. Defendant fully incorporates by reference the all of the defenses above as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
78. The Plaintiffs’ have lied under oath in this complaint before the court. Even with my limited scope of Exhibits of and in my defenses, I believe that I have proven perjury beyond any doubt in front of this court.
79. NCGS 14-209 States as follows: If any person shall willfully and corruptly commit perjury, on his oath or affirmation, in any suit, controversy, matter or cause, depending in any courts of the State, or in any deposition or affidavit taken pursuant to law, or in any oath or affirmation duly administered of or concerning any matter or thing whereof such person is lawfully required to be sworn or affirmed, every person so offending shall be punished as a Class F felon.
80. I next bring before this court the facts of the attorney of record in this so called VERIFIED COMPLAINT. I am asking this court for sanctions against the attorney and the Plaintiffs’ respectfully.
81. NCGS 14-210 Subornation of perjury, which states as follows: If any person shall, by means, procure another person to commit such willful and corrupt perjury as is mentioned in NCGS 14-209, the person so offending shall be punished as a Class I felon. I not only have demonstrated the attorney of record on this complaint. His involvement of Harassment, Coercion, and willful acts of perjury on his representation of this illegal suit. To inflict harassment, coercion, wasted time, efforts, and money in my defense of such ridiculous charges.