Wednesday, October 26, 2011

October 26, 2011 Stay tuned...

Friday, October 7, 2011

After countless hearings and rulings by pocketed judges the Defendants have been out-maneuvered. We met a final time in May 2011. They, certain that finally their judge would rule to incarcerate me for publishing these public records. Fortunately, I had my card to play. I had filed a Motion To Show Cause to ask the Court to ask them why they had published my medical information on the Internet. Quietly they moved the court to proclaim that both issues were moot, paving the way for publication of the book "Nichols and Sense-Yates, McLamb & Weyher and the Laurels Conspiracy."

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Sunday, October 17, 2010


The photos above were placed into evidence by the Defendants. They claimed that the center photo shows the Plaintiff's SUV as it was directly in front of Bryant's vehicle-supposedly cutting him off. However, the computer generated video below illustrates how the vehicles must have been lined up to produce the shot. The computer holds the objects in place and moves them around in unison. It clearly shows the SUV must have been positioned outside of Bryant's passenger window.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010


Wednesday, September 22, 2010

(Those Who Fail to Remember The Past Are Doomed to Repeat it)

Being a student of history, I have always been amazed at the irony that surrounds the battles we choose to wage and the positions we choose to take in defense of those battles. One thing I learned in the military was Attention to Detail; so when I see Attention to Detail buck up against Irony, it becomes particularly interesting. Case in Point: The Appellant filed a Motion for Rule 34 Sanctions against the Appellees. The Appellees filed their response and in their response, they deem many of the violations of the N.C. appellate rules as de minimus or not really violations at all. One of those violations is that the Appellees, when citing to the record on appeal, wrote (R. p. 1247); and for multiple pages as (R. p. 893-896). Rule 9(b)(4) makes it clear that periods are abolished and the citings are written as (R p 1247); and multiple pages as (R pp 893-896). The Appellees' Joint Response acknowledges these violations by stating "The plain language of Rule 9(b)(4) is acknowledged." Where is the irony you might ask? Well, even in the pleading detailing their response, although they acknowledge this violation, they astoundingly still write [on page 4] (R. p. 598); [on page 6] (R. 1252) even leaving out the "p"; [and on page 8] (R. p. 1322-1324). As Larry the Cable Guy says, "Now THAT'S funny; I don't care who you are!" I guess Ole William T. Kessler, Jr. is tied to the pretty periods......................PERIOD!

Tuesday, June 15, 2010



Well, the Appellees filed a joint response to the Appellant's Motion For Rule 34 Sanctions; and you never read such crying from grown folks in your life. They claim that appellees may adopt by reference portions of the briefs of others. While true, they still cannot file a separate brief that argues a single issue from a case in which they appeared as counsel and not as parties. They address that by stating they are proper parties to the appeal. Again, true if they filed a joint brief. They did not. Civil Procedure 101- John Houseman's class-JURISDICTION, Mr. Berg (Seinfeld reference). At the end of that argument they state: "In the alternative... Appellees are more than willing to file amended briefs to cure any defects." If you have been following this case, you are probably thinking- Can you spell IRONY, boys and girls!

Next they say that they didn't make any misrepresentations regarding Contempt; and thus the Appellant's motion is misguided and (wait for it, wait for it...) Frivoluous. They love using that phrase. Their definition?

friv-o-lous. -adjective. Any pleading filed by a pro se litigant that doesn't support our storyline.

They further go on to say Judge Stanback's order is not the issue in this appeal, although their brief purportedly details it completely. They say the sole issue is if Judge Stephens (they spelled his name wrong repeatedly in their brief-oops) acted according to the law. Sounds pretty clear except that if the records are public record (which they are) the order is void, and Judge Stephens did not act according to law. The whole point is they want the Appellant to write what they want him to write-which is nothing about the case or the players. Unfortunately, that darn First Amendment thing keeps coming up. They know this so they don't go into if these records are public records and actually say that the allegations that these records are public is pure surmise. [the dog ate my homework, the check is in the mail and those allegations are pure surmise] They contend that this issue is not before the court. They believe that they should get a judgment for contempt and if it's based upon a lie or omission of the facts...well the trial court didn't catch it so.............

In fine [you haven't been checking out your appeal blogs] fashion, the Appellees also argue that the Appellant has no right to supplement the record. How dare he! Boys and girls there are new appellate rules, as of Oct 1, 2009. Check out this blog entry! Nuf said!

I love this part. When challenged in the motion for sanctions for not presenting a fair presentation of the facts, they simply say that the information is in the record somewhere and the COA could find it if they were so inclined.

It may be time to fire their secretary. No. "II. Appellees Made No Misrepresentation Regarding Contempt" is mistakenly re-typed as No "III. Appellees Made No Misrepresentation Regarding Contempt" (Damn, OOPS again...damn).

Oh, oh, this is great! As to the numerous appellate rule violations? They acknowledged a few, but say they are de minimis. I think they may be a little de confusus. They argue that these multiple rule violations are not gross or substantial. However, if the Appellees lack standing to argue an issue on appeal, their brief is in gross and substantial violation of the rules. Simply put, the Appellees with their 60 plus attorneys, at least 8 being appellate attorneys, asked for and received 30 extra days to file their briefs and the many rule violations seems to suggest that they may not have put their A Team on it.

Lastly, these officers of the court, accused of misrepresenting the facts state the following:

"Throughout this process, Appellant makes reference to the fact that he is appearing and proceeding pro se, and that the courts should take pity upon him...Appellant is quick to point out his 'status,' presumably asking "How was he supposed to know? Enough is enough." Have you ever read such crap? If these guys can point to ANYWHERE in any record where the Appellant asked the court to take pity on him or where he asked "how was I supposed to know", I'll push a pea with my nose from Durham to Des Moines. What they are really saying is that up against a pro se litigant, they are SUPPOSED to win. Each and Everytime.

They believe they are superior and if they have to tell a few lies to get the job done, so what? But what they fail to remember or understand is THEY PICKED THIS FIGHT! And the battle has been joined. Their pleadings throughout this process are a clear indication that they lack attention to detail. When you lack attention to detail, you had at least better be telling the truth or you're in trouble. They thought they were going up against a nurse and it would be easy. Unfortunately, they started a war with a soldier...oops!


Well, I finally checked out this Appellee Brief . After I got to the 10th egregious error, I realized this isn't a brief with just a difference of opinion. This document is text-book OMG! In response, I filed a Motion For Rule 34 Sanctions. You can read the motion by clicking the link or the graphic above, but here are some of the highlights:

1) Big Problem: Back in February 2009 Partrick and West were told by Judge Ronald Stephens that they could not initiate a contempt motion without the sworn affidavit of the "aggrevied" party. Unfortunately, he then let Partrick swear to the motion. Lawyers don't generally like to swear to stuff in court because they can then be held accountable for what they say, but Sean did it anyway. Now he's being sued. OK, so what do they do in Sept-Oct of 2009? They initiate another motion for sanctions without a sworn affidavit. Here's the problem. The attorneys filed two briefs. One brief was the Yates Lawyers representing the Oak Health Appellees. That's fine. But the other brief is the YMH-Brock Lawyers representing the YMW Lawyers as Appellees arguing that Johnson is continuing to say bad things about them. What's the rub? The motion for contempt sanctions is based upon a supposed violation of Judge Stanback's order where the YMW-Partrick-West crowd appeared as counsel for Oak Health. The attorneys have no standing to appear as Appellees on the issue of Johnson is saying bad things about us, because they never brought an action as Plaintiffs. Wow! And these guys got an extra 30 days to file this thing!

2) I love this one. West filed a motion to strike summonses, asked for attorney fees and filed an affidavit. He also drew up the proposed order, which Judge spencer signed. Unfortunately for West, he neglected to state what statutory basis the attorney fees were requested under. They are now trying to claim its Rule 11, but that has to be expressly cited in the motion. So what do they do? In their brief, they say its Rule 11...of course its Rule 11. But also in their brief they say its Rule 22. OOPS.

3) Here's another good one. For Rule 11 sanctions, the judge has to state specific findings of fact to justify how he arrived at the attorney fee. Here, West writes in his proposed order that Judge Spencer signed "...based on the stuff West said in his motion and affidavit..yada, yada, yada..." That is insufficient. So what do they do in their brief? They simply say "yea it is! Just check out Winston-Salem Wrecker Ass'n, Inc. v. Barker; it says the judge can just refer to the motion and affidavit of the attorney to justify attorney fees. See? See?" When I read that, I remembered the Winston-Salem Wrecker case during MY research. And then it hit me... In the MORE specific case of William Carter Franklin v. June Marie Wiggins, Wiggins LLC., the W-S Wrecker case is cited. Problem for the Appellees? It supports my argument. The case highlights that due to an interpretation by another court some years back, NC Gen Stat 6-21.5 allows a judge to make that one line finding of fact that references the attorney's motion and affidavit, but as hightlighted in Franklin v. Wiggins, that aint-a-gonna help you when asking for attorney fees under Rule 11. The Appellees actually make MY point by citing Wrecker. 30 extra days, 60+ couldn't make this stuff up!

4) It appears that Brock has turned over the appeal to a new youngsville gavin (inside joke) upstart re-plant attorney from New York to handle the appeal. Maybe he is too busy or maybe he sees where this is going. Anyway, the new guy, Adam G. Tarsitano, forgot to include his email address and State Bar Number as required. (He's a singer-songwriter like me . I think I'm better , though) William T. Kessler , Jr. (lot of Jr.s in the legal field) who is ghost-writing for Partrick, (another inside joke) also forgot to include his email address. The rule violations abound in both these briefs though. Check out the Motion for Rule 34 sanctions for the long list of Rule violations. Anyway, these briefs are a hoot.

Well, Here it is FINALLY...

The Appellees finally filed their Appellee Brief. After a requested 30 day extension of time to file their brief(s), the brief is docketed. I'm still in the process of review, but several things jump right at me. They attempt a legal slight of hand. I was wondering, lo these 60 days how they would get around some of the most damaging issues in this case. Well, here's how...

1) Their continued misrepresentation of the permanent injunction.

Answer: Nowhere in their brief do they correctly present the provisions of the permanent injunction. They boldly state the provisions of the preliminary injunction (R. p. 901-02) as controlling. [Note: The referenced page numbers are incorrectly written. R. p. 15 is supposed to be written R p 15] They also argue that the default judgment that they improperly obtained [more on that later] somehow overrules the permanent injunction and and thus is also controlling. Interesting theory. Not legally binding, but interesting.

2) Here's one that is really telling. The YMW defendants are being sued for malicious prosecution. However, in their brief they say "The Complaint..allege claims arising out of an incident in which Appellant actively assisted a witness avoid service of a subpoena and the contempt proceedings that followed." It appears that they are attempting to throw some legal mud to enrage the COA by strategically failing to note that a) the charges were dismissed in Plaintiff's favor; effectively dispelling their charges of "actively"... doing anything wrong b) they are being sued for prosecuting a criminal case without authority. inter alia........

3) Like I said, I am still reviewing this thing but one thing that jumps right off the page is the many times they state what they believe is the law and fail to provide case law to support their argument. Anyway, it is an interesting document. If the COA buys what they are selling, they will have to completely overturn stare decisis.

Corporations Poise The Biggest Threat To Your

First Amendment Rights


(click photo below to view brief)