STATEMENT OF FACTS
On June 11, 2009 Wake Court Judge Kristin Ruth continued Donna Pilch’s district court case by signing a fake/unlawful Motion to Continue document which was not and is not approved by the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.
Judge Kristin Ruth signed the fake court document which states that she examined Pilch’s file and that the information contained in it was “accurate and true.”
Judge Kristin Ruth committed a felony, obstruction of justice by continuing Donna Pilch’s court case when there was no probable cause to do so, and evidence in Pilch’s file of a crime of perjury by an SBI notary and defective SBI serology protocol. Additionally, Ruth should have noticed that the Department of Health document for receipt of evidence contains two different citation numbers; neither of which belonged to Donna Pilch.
If Ruth did, indeed, review Pilch’s district court case file, then she is guilty of felony, obstruction of justice by continuing her case despite evidence of a crime by the SBI. If she did not review Pilch’s case file, she is still guilty of felony, obstruction of justice by failing to review it. Either way, she is guilty of failing to perform her administrative duties by signing a fake court form. Judges do not enjoy absolute immunity in recklessly failing to perform their administrative duties.
As a judge, Ruth should have known that lawful court documents are posted online on the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts website (www.nccourts.org/forms), and that all lawful court forms contain an “AOC” code located in the lower left corner. The fake Motion to Continue form does not contain an AOC code.
Ruth should have questioned why the fake document says that the “trial of these charges” shall be continued in district court. Per NCGS §7A-196, there shall be no jury trials in district court. The only pre-trial motion allowed in district court is a probable cause hearing, per NCGS§15A-606. Thus Ruth demonstrated that she does not understand the laws that she is supposed to be enforcing.
In addition, if Ruth reviewed Pilch’s file, she should have questioned why no probable cause hearing occurred pursuant to NCGS §15A-606, which mandates that all defendants demand or waive probable cause hearing within 15 days of their first appearance in district court.
Per State v. Hudson, 295 N.C. 427, 430 (1978), probable cause hearing is supposed to ensure that defendant will not be unjustifiably put to the trouble and expense of trial if there is no probable cause.
And Ruth signed the fake form a day after Pilch appeared before her, and when Pilch did appear before her on June 10, 2009, Ruth never asked to hear Pilch’s case. This violated Pilch’s 14th amendment right to due process and caused harm by keeping Pilch in district court without probable cause.
Plaintiff invokes jurisdiction of this Court per Title 42, section §1983. Per Monroe v. Pape (1961), §1983 does not require victims of unconstitutional state action to exhaust state remedies that might be available to them before bringing suit under §1983.
Second, an official can act under color of law within the meaning of §1983 and be personally liable under this statute when he violates state law and commits acts that state law would not authorize or sanction. (State law requires that the U.S. Constitution be enforced).
Per section §1983, liability will attach if the defendant acted under color of state law, and the defendants’ actions deprived Plaintiff rights and privileges secured by the Constitution. Both apply.
In Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25-31 (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court held that State officers are subject to § 1983 liability for damages in their personal capacities, even when the conduct in question relates to their official duties. The Supreme Court voted unanimously 8-0, upholding this right.
The purpose of §1983 is to deter public officials from using the badge of their authority to violate persons’ constitutional rights and to provide compensation and other relief to victims of constitutional deprivations. Carey v. Piphus, 435, US 247, 253 (1978).
No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and they are bound to obey it. United States v. Lee (1882) and Buckles v. King County (Wash.) 1999.
CLAIM OF HARM
Using unlawful/fake court documents is unconstitutional as it violates the 4th, 8th and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The fake Motion to Continue document aided in keeping Pilch held hostage in the Wake Court for over a year when there was no probable cause to do so. Failing to act to correct the undisputable evidence of crime is demonstrates callous indifference to the constitutional rights by Ruth to Pilch and the class of other defendants who were, are and will be similarly situated to Plaintiff, and thus punitive damages are due.
Plaintiff has standing to sue because she was and is directly harmed (“injured in fact”) by Ruth’s failure to provide due process and obstruction of justice, when she failed to review Pilch’s court case when Pilch appeared before her in person on June 10, 2009. Plaintiff was injured in fact when Ruth continued her case, which led to an unlawful and unconstitutional conviction. The economic injury is directly traceable to Ruth and is redressable with punitive damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
- Plaintiff requests that Judge Kristin Ruth be ORDERED to resign.
- Plaintiff requests that Superior Court Clerk Lorrin Freeman be ORDERED to identify and notify victims of the fake/unlawful Motion to Continue document and that written notification contain an apology from Judge Kristin Ruth to the class impacted.
- Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages is documented in her other motions previously filed.
Donna Pilch, Pro se