IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION Civil Action No. 5:2011-CV-360-H
JEAN, MORELOCK AND BRUMBACK,
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
RULE 56 OF THE F.R.C.P.
- I. CONCLUSION
It is both unlawful and unconstitutional for Defendants to ask this Court to dismiss the complaint against them because in essence, they are asking this court to obstruct justice by ignoring the proof of crime that Plaintiff gave them.
Plaintiff and her district court attorney both gave Brumback proof of crime in the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (a notary’s perjury and defective serology protocol), and fake/unlawful court documents in use in the Wake Court which also obstruct justice and which harm a class of thousands of people who were, are, and will be similarly situated to Plaintiff.
Defendants maintain that the grievance committee’s only duties are to investigate an attorney. Plaintiff maintains that all members of the North Carolina State Bar are under oath to honor the United States Constitution per North Carolina General Statute, § 11-7, and it is repugnant to the Constitution to ignore a crime that denies a class of people their constitutional rights. No one is so high above the law that they have immunity from obstructing justice.
The purpose and function of the North Carolina State Bar is to facilitate the administration of justice and to promote reform in the law. Thus, all members of the North Carolina State Bar must honor the U.S. Constitution, and the function and purpose of the North Carolina State Bar. The grievance committee is part of the North Carolina State Bar and they are not immune from their constitutional oath. The grievance committee does not enjoy laws that allow them to obstruct justice. Moreover, if such a law did exist, it would be repugnant to the Constitution and therefore be null and void.
Finally, Katherine Jean’s role is obstructing justice is most reprehensible and “shocks the conscience” because she serves as Chief Counsel of the North Carolina State Bar. She did not honor her oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution and failed to perform her duty to facilitate the administration of justice and to promote reform in the law.
Jean’s letters to Pilch reveal reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and the class of others who were, are and will be similarly situated to Plaintiff. Her conduct is “shocking” and repugnant to the U.S. Constitution.
Jean’s letters to Pilch show she deliberately refused to act with reasonable diligence to report a crime. She did not take any action whatsoever to report the SBI crime to the N.C. General Assembly or even delegate the responsibility to the N.C. State Bar’s legislative liaison.
CLAIM OF HARM
Plaintiff has standing to sue because she suffered personal, professional and financial “injury in fact” which is directly traceable to the North Carolina State Bar’s failure to report the unlawful court documents and SBI notary’s perjury and defective protocol to the General Assembly. If Brumback reported the crime in April 2010, it is possible that Plaintiff would have been spared the horrific ordeal of being unlawfully forced into a jury trial in Wake Superior Court on May 3, 2010 and use of fake/unlawful court documents could have been curbed. They deliberately failed facilitate the administration of justice and promote reform in the law. This has caused economic harm to Plaintiff.
Instead of working as a marketing professional, Plaintiff performed the unpaid role of lobbying the N.C. General Assembly for legislative reform from August 3, 2010 to present, when the N.C. State Bar’s legislative liaison could have done so easily and is paid to do so. Therefore Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for performing urgent and necessary duties that should have been done by an employee of North Carolina State Bar.
Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages because Katherine Jean failed to act with reasonable diligence to curb the crime in the SBI and to curb use of the Wake Court’s use of fake/unlawful court documents. The SBI crime and fake/unlawful court documents clearly violate the 14th amendment to the constitution, obstruct justice and cause obvious harm (“injury in fact”). Acting with reckless indifference to a person’s constitutional rights is a reason why punitive damages are awarded. Punitive damages are a deterrent to prevent future misconduct.
If this Court dismissed this lawsuit, it would send a message to the public that it’s permissible for North Carolina’s highest leaders to overlook crime and obstruct justice with reckless indifference. And that is entirely unconstitutional.
- II. PRAYER FOR RELIEF:
Plaintiff Donna Pilch respectfully requests this court to order a summary judgment against Defendant for punitive and compensatory damages of $200,000 and a fully-paid law school scholarship.
Plaintiff seeks an interim law certificate that will allow her to practice (limited) Section §1983 litigation to assist other victims of the Wake County Court. Victims include minorities, indigent, uneducated, handicapped, immigrants and similar segments of the population who do not understand law or their constitutional rights and who cannot afford an attorney. The punitive damages award will enable Plaintiff to assist other victims at no charge.
The Supreme Court has maintained that a 1:5 ratio of compensatory to punitive damages is fair and lawful. Plaintiff’s prayer for relief is modest in comparison to other financial damage awards upheld by the Supreme Court.
Donna Pilch, Pro se