Yates, Mclamb and Weyher-The Laurels Conspiracy

Barbara B. Weyher

has just been presented with Discovery Requests.

Want to bet she doesn't answer without a fight?

click photo below:

PROPOSED RECORD ON APPEAL

Click the photo below to view the document

Barbara B. Weyher, President of the North Carolina State Bar, sued under the Klu Klux Klan Act for Civil Rights and ethics violations.
An Amended Verified Civil Complaint was filed on July 15, 2009 against the newly elected president of the North Carolina State Bar, Barbara B. Weyher, her husband Dan J.McLamb, her law firm, a couple of her staff attorneys and a couple of her large clients. The lawsuit alleges a conspiracy to violate civil rights, conceal a criminally negligent homicide and that Barbara B. Weyher misused her previous position as *Chair of the Grievance Committee of the North Carolina State Bar to dismiss a complaint against her law partner, Sean T. Partrick and another attorney in her employ at her law firm Yates, McLamb and Weyher, LLP. The lawsuit, pursuant to 42. U.S.C. 1983 (commonly called the Klu Klux Klan Act) seeks unspecified damages and an injunction to prevent Ms. Weyher from assuming the position of President of the North Carolina State Bar. The Complaint also alleges, among other things, that when the attorneys at Yates, McLamb and Weyher were unable to defeat a pro se litigant (litigant acting without a lawyer), they first tried to get him to pay a overly inflated sanction for attorney's fees and when that did not have the desired effect, they brought false criminal charges against him. The criminal charges ended in favor of the pro se litigant and thus the lawsuit for malicious prosecution. Most of the civil rights charges stem from prosecutorial misconduct; the most egregious being that the attorneys had no authority to prosecute a criminal case and purposely failed to try and obtain such authority because they knew their charges were false and would not have passed the scrutiny of the District Attorney's Office. As a VERIFIED Complaint, the Defendants must give a verified answer. That means they (not their attorney) have to swear that the answers they give are true. Now if you know that the answers you'd like to give are untrue, you usually resist giving a verified answer. Instead, you file a motion to dismiss or summary judgment.
*In 2006, during Weyher's tenure as Chair of the Grievance Committee, the Lawyer Discipline System in North Carolina was ranked 50th overall in the entire country.

Under Color of Law?

36. Upon information and belief, Defendant Weyher, acting under the color of law, failed to recuse herself from considering these grievance matters coming before the North Carolina State Bar, failed to disclose her professional and private relationship with attorneys Sean T. Partrick and Michael Hurley to the Plaintiff and further used her position with the North Carolina State Bar to prevent the Plaintiff from obtaining proper redress with the Bar and further conspired with and directed attorneys Partrick, West and others at Yates, McLamb & Weyher, LLP., to engage in increasingly illegal, unconstitutional, unethical and oppressive pre-trial tactics against the Plaintiff. (Complaint page 11)

Rule 6.6 Action as a Public Official: A lawyer who holds public office shall not:(b) use his or her public position to influence, or attempt to influence, a tribunal to act in favor of himself or herself or his or her client; [1] A lawyer who is a public officer, whether full or part time, should not engage in activities in which the lawyer's personal or professional interests are or foreseeably may be in conflict with his or her official duties.

Fraudulent Document?

46. The affidavit of Defendant West, although signed by him, was notarized by Yates, McLamb & Weyher, LLP, employee and North Carolina State notary, Christine G. Bolyard, as certifying that Barbara B. Weyher (not Christopher West) personally appeared before Notary Bolyard to acknowledge the due execution of the affidavit. (Complaint page 14) Below is the North Carolina Secretary of State Response to the purportedly fraudulent affidavit of Christopher West, aka Barbara B. Weyher:

Conspiracy to Cover Up Theft

of Exculpatory Evidence?

162. The Defendants had a duty to insure prior to hiring Mr. Bryant, that he did not have a history of reckless driving or providing false testimony in Court.6 The Defendants, having witnessed Mr. Bryant’s continuously changing false statements on and off of the witness stand, had a duty not to retain him as a fact witness in a criminal prosecution against the Plaintiff or supervise him as to his obligation to provide truthful testimony. The Defendants willfully breached those duties, as Mr. Bryant has a history of providing false testimony concerning traffic matters, has a history of reckless driving, which he lied about in a judicial hearing and the Defendants were aware of Bryant’s December 8, 2008 contradictory testimony.

6 An attorney can be held independently liable for the negligent hiring or supervision of a private detective. Noble v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 33 Cal. App. 3d 654, 109 Cal. Rptr. 29 (1973). (complaint page 38)

"I'm Not A Prosecutor,

But I Play One On T.V."

81. The Defendants, in violation of state and federal law, willfully failed to seek or obtain an Order of the Court authorizing them to act as prosecutors in this case.
82. The Defendants, in violation of state and federal law, and to purposely circumvent the mandatory legal oversight of the state, willfully failed to seek or obtain the authority of the District Attorney to act as prosecutors in this case. (Complaint page 23)

Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton Et Fils S.A., Counsel for a party that is a beneficiary of a court order cannot be appointed to prosecute criminal contempt. When private attorneys are employed, the district attorney must remain in charge of and be responsible for the prosecution, State v. Page, 22 N.C.App. 435, 206 S.E.2d 771, 772 cert. denied, 285 N.C. 763, 209 S.E.2d 287 (1974).

THE FIRST AMENDMENT:

JUST A SUGGESTION?

Prohibited Orders. § 7A‑276.1. Court orders prohibiting publication or broadcast of reports of open court proceedings or reports of public records banned. No court shall make or issue any rule or order banning, prohibiting, or restricting the publication or broadcast of any report concerning any of the following: any evidence, testimony, argument, ruling, verdict, decision, judgment, or other matter occurring in open court in any hearing, trial, or other proceeding, civil or criminal; and no court shall issue any rule or order sealing, prohibiting, restricting the publication or broadcast of the contents of any public record as defined by any statute of this State, which is required to be open to public inspection under any valid statute, regulation, or rule of common law. If any rule or order is made or issued by any court in violation of the provisions of this statute, it shall be null and void and of no effect, and no person shall be punished for contempt for the violation of any such void rule or order.

THE BRADY "VIOLATION" BUNCH?

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court held that withholding evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. Police officers (or private detectives) who lie are often called "Brady cops", because of the Brady ruling, prosecutors are required to notify defendants and their attorneys whenever a law enforcement officials involved in their case has a sustained record for knowingly lying in an official capacity.

63. On January 12, 2009 the Defendants served their responses to Johnson’s First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. The Defendant’s objected to and refused to answer any and all questions concerning their purported fact allegations or legal theory concerning the pending criminal contempt hearing, claiming, inter alia, that questions concerning what specific evidence supported the charge of criminal contempt were beyond the scope of discovery. This evidence was favorable to the accused because it was exculpatory and was willfully suppressed to the prejudice of the Plaintiff (then Defendant). (Complaint page 18)

STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY

As alleged in the COMPLAINT, LPN Ross recorded that all eleven patients had the same pulse rate of 76 every day for 3 weeks. This is a statistical impossiblility. When other nurses worked, the pulse rates differed greatly.

Different Legal Standards

In North Carolina
Depending On Your Race

and Economic Status?

42. Additionally, The Defendants mistakenly pled lack of subject matter jurisdiction when they meant to plead lack of personal jurisdiction and made multiple general appearances before seeking a dismissal for insufficiency of service.8

43. Nevertheless, the Defendants moved for and obtained dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants admitted that the dismissal was obtained at least in part, subsequent to improper ex parte contact with the trial judge.

8 A party that makes a general appearance is estopped from pleading insufficiency of service of process.

Bradford Payne

President of

Oak Health Care Investors of N.C. and

Laurel Health Care Company

41. The Defendants made several procedural mistakes which frustrated their efforts to obtain a dismissal of Johnson’s civil action. Defendants failed inter alia, to plead certain affirmative defenses in a responsive pleading, failed to file an answer to the Complaint for Defendant Laurel Health Care Company.

42. Additionally, The Defendants mistakenly pled lack of subject matter jurisdiction when they meant to plead lack of personal jurisdiction and made multiple general appearances before seeking a dismissal for insufficiency of service. Defendants stated they believed the Plaintiff did not understand that Oak Health Care Investors doing business as the Laurels of Forest Glenn and Defendant Laurel Health Care Company were separate Defendants and therefore did not file an answer for Laurel Health Care Company. NOTE: Both Defendants were listed separately in the Complaint. A party that makes a general appearance is estopped from pleading insufficiency of service of process.

For more information, go to this lawsuit's YouTube page: bweyhertheidesofmar (Beware the Ides of March 20, 2009)

No Matter Who You Are,

You Can't Get Away With

Homicide!

39. The final agency decision of the North Carolina Board of Nursing was upheld by the Court. However, Plaintiff Johnson discovered that Monroe Jackson Nichols, general counsel for the board, had removed a compact disc containing exculpatory evidence from the Superior Court file, prior to the Judicial Review Hearing and that the Defendants had conspired with attorney Nichols to prevent Johnson from calling witnesses and receiving a fair hearing. Additionally, it is upon information and belief that the Defendants conspired to cover up the theft of the compact disc containing the exculpatory evidence.

RE-WRITING THE FACTS

TO MAKE YOUR

CLIENT LOOK GOOD?
Three North Carolina Nursing Homes that are owned and operated under the Laurels franchise have been been found to be "Much Below Average" and received an overall rating of one (1) star out of a possible five (5). They are The Laurels of Forest Glenn in Garner, The Laurels of Chatham in Pittsboro and the Laurels of Salisbury in Salisbury.

63. On January 12, 2009 the Defendants served their responses to Johnson’s First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. The Defendant’s objected to and refused to answer any and all questions concerning their purported fact allegations or legal theory concerning the pending criminal contempt hearing, claiming, inter alia, that questions concerning what specific evidence supported the charge of criminal contempt were beyond the scope of discovery. This evidence was favorable to the accused because it was exculpatory and was willfully suppressed to the prejudice of the Plaintiff (then Defendant).

BRADY VIOLATION, FOR EXAMPLE:
"Plaintiffs (now Defendants) allege that Defendant (now Plaintiff) also published patient information..." Sean T. Partrick MOTION FOR CONTEMPT November 3, 2008

"Identify, with specificity, which portions of the internet posts disclose confidential health information for an identifiable resident." Kenneth Johnson DISCOVERY QUESTION

"Objection. Defendant's (now Plaintiff) request is beyond the scope of Rule 26 of the NC Rules of Civil Procedure in that it is not relevant to the matter currently before the Court." Sean T. Partrick ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY January 12, 2009.

"Identify, with specificity, which portions of the internet posts contain false statements." Kenneth Johnson DISCOVERY QUESTION

"Objection. Defendant's (now Plaintiff) request is beyond the scope of Rule 26 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure in that it is not relevant to the matter currently before the Court." Sean T. Partrick ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY January 12, 2009

This is why attorneys who only practice insurance and construction law, shouldn't try to play prosecutor. In civil court it may just be bad form, but in criminal court, this refusal to provide the defense with what the heck your charges stem from is a Brady violation and essentially a crime. As they say in the Army "Stay in YOUR lane."

IT MUST HAVE BEEN

A GHOST WRITER...

In response to the civil suit that alleges Barbara B. Weyher, under color of law, misused her position as Chair of the Grievance Committee of the North Carolina State Bar, Walter E. Brock, Jr., attorney for Yates, McLamb & Weyher LLP and the other attorney defendants sent a letter to me that included a response from Katherine E. Jean, counsel for the State Bar. After Brock made some veiled threat about what they might do if this blog goes into actionable territory, he points out that I may find the State Bar's response to his inquiry to be informative. (I did) Among the many things that Ms. Jean says is: "...it is apparent that she [Weyher] played no role in this matter whatsoever." Someone else used Weyher's electronic signature. "It is unfortunate that, due to a clerical error, the dismissal letter in this case contains the electronic signature of Ms. Weyher rather than the electronic signature of Mr. Di Santi, which would have been the proper procedure."
Hey, I believe them. I hear that there has been a rash of unscrupulous secretaries that go from organization to organization, sending people letters of dismissal from poor innocent public officials. The Unscrups, as I think they are called, not only used Ms. Weyher's electronic signature, but also used HER letter head and in the body of the letter they even say "Your grievance was reviewed by the Chair (Weyher) and a staff attorney... They EACH concluded that there is insufficient evidence that the attorney (Sean T. Partrick and Michael Hurley)violated the Rules.... " The Unscrups are going to be in alot of trouble now boy! Oops. I forgot. According to Katherine Jean, "Consistent with the State Bar's document retention policy, the dismissal letter in this case was destroyed..." Darn those Unscrups! Covering their tails again.

Here's the thing. The Di Santi dismissal form obviously must be fraudulent. What makes attorneys put their careers on the line to engage in a conspiracy. I guess they never heard that its not the crime...its the cover-up that get's you.

In any battle, adaptation is your greatest

strength. Be water my friend.

The Information Published In This Blog

Is Public Record And As Such, Is

Protected Free Speech Pursuant To

North Carolina General Statute § 7A‑276.1

And The First Amendment!

(Parody is Protected Speech)

WHEN FACED WITH AN OPPONENT THAT BELIEVES THEMSELVES TO BE UNTOUCHABLE...REACH OUT AND TOUCH THEM IN UNCONVENTIONAL WAYS!

The Laurels Cover-Up:

Criminally Negligent Homicide?

1. This is a civil action for damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and 42 U.S.C. § 1986, commonly known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, and the common law of the State of North Carolina arising from the Defendants’ willful misconduct as they conspired to cover-up and shield themselves from potential charges of criminally negligent homicide involving the death of a nursing home patient and improper retaliation against the Plaintiff for reporting the crime.

TRYING TO FIND LEGAL COVER FOR

YOUR CLIENT'S SIGNATURE ISN'T

THAT EASY ANYMORE (Unless you know the Judge)

Attorney Walter E. Brock Jr., with his client, Barbara B. "Bonnie" Weyher's signature on two forms that dismissed the NC State Bar Complaint against her law partners Sean T. Partrick and Michael Hurley, back in August of 2006, has advanced an interesting theory. He filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the fact that there can be no doubt that Barbara B. Weyher, then the Chair of the Grievance Committee for the NC State Bar, had recused herself from considering or deciding on the dismissals. They contend that after Weyher told someone on the staff (they fail to name just who) that she was recusing herself, Vice Chair Anthony di Santi, took over and dismissed the complaints and the staff sent the letters out to the Plaintiff in error, that included Weyher's personal letterhead, her signature and the words "Your grievance was reviewed by the Chair of the Grievance Committee and a staff attorney (Margaret T. Cloutier) with the State Bar's Office of Counsel. They each concluded that there is insufficient evidence that the attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct..." Therefore, they argue, the Additional Prayer for Relief, that asks the Court to enjoin Weyher from being seated in October 2009 as the next President of the State Bar, should be dismissed. They further added affidavits from Weyher, Cloutier, Katherine Jean and Anthony di Santi, that alleged that Weyher had recused herself, even though Cloutier states that she doesn't remember the incident, Jean didn't even begin working there until 4 months after the incident and none of the witnesses can say just who was told of the recusal and just who typed the letters on Weyher's letterhead. Also very, very, very curious; although the Report of Counsel Forms were purportedly signed by di Santi on July 6, 2006 and Jean states the complaint documents were destroyed, the Plaintiff has a copy, complete with notary stamp, dated July 10, 2006. Interesting...Click HERE to see the only way this could have been done.

Anyway, their biggest issue, it seems is that the signature is an electronic signature that was placed on the forms in error. Interesting theory, but even if true, Weyher still has a couple of problems. First there is UETA. On June 30, 2000, President Clinton signed the Electronic Signatures in National and Global and National Commerce Act. Shortly thereafter, North Carolina passed its own version knownas the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act. These Acts place a presumption of validity on documents that contain digital signatures. So under the law, B. Bonnie is presumed to have signed the documents. Now she can still dispute that she signed it and argue against its validity, but claiming there is no issue of material fact as to if she signed it, so she can get a partial summary judgment? Not likely, unless the judge decides "Rules of Civil Procedure Be Damned. I like these Good Ole Boys!" Don't laugh. So far, that has been their primary trial strategy! The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment has other SERIOUS issues also. Curiously, Weyher was part of a Blue Ribbon Committee back in January of 2005 that investigated public calls of corruption, bias, favoritism and unequal discipline of attorneys associated with the State Bar, by State Bar Counsels. At the center of the firestorm was a newly hired counsel, Margaret something-or-other. Oh wait...Cloutier. Margaret Cloutier. Sound familiar? now I'm no skeptic (really, yes I am) but if Weyher sat on the committee and Cloutier was the one investigated, do you think the same people would make the same "simple" mistake less than a year after the big investigation? Click HERE to read the Report. Click on the graphic below and read the Plaintiff's response.

OPPOSITION TO WEYHER'S MOTION

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Click to View Entire Brief)

Attorney Oath

Lest We Forget....

"You solemnly swear that you will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, and that if you know of an intention to commit any, you will give knowledge thereof to the justices of the court or some of them that it may be prevented; you will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit nor give aid or consent to the same; that you will delay no man for lucre or malice, but will conduct yourself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of your knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity, as well as to the courts, as to your clients. So help you God."

The VERY CURIOUS Wake County Bar Awards

June 3, 2009

A Sponsor of the Very Serious Wake County Bar Awards

Yates, McLamb and Weyher, L.L.P

A Strong Case For Campaign Finance

Reform Should Be Continuously Addressed

Legal Event of the Year Award Accepted by:

Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Donald W. Stephens

Horn and Percussion Player with the "Soul Searchers" in the Band

Walter Brock (Young, Moore & Henderson)

Walter E. Brock, Jr.

August 31, 2009

On August 31, 2009 Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens heard a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment from Walter Brock of Young, Moore & Henderson; filed in the representation of Barbara B. Weyher of Yates, McLamb & Weyher. The issues on both sides were compelling and the motion should have been a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for the court. Nevertheless, the motion was granted.

September 14, 2009

Also at that hearing Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens, contrary to law, granted Yates, McLamb and Weyher a "gag order" and held Johnson in contempt for publishing public records. He signed the order on September 14, 2009. Forty-Four (44) days later...

October 29, 2009

Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens released a MEMORANDUM TO SENIOR RESIDENT SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES. Within the memorandum Judge Stephens said the following:

1) "...court records are public records and may be withheld only when sealed by court order..."

2) "Sealing is contrary to the public records law and should not be routinely done."

Interestingly, the memo also refers to "I have authorized Michael Crowell to send you copies of our documents." If you're wondering who is this Michael Crowell that Judge Stephens is holding up as his subject-matter expert, and you Google him, first you discover that he is a Professor of Law and Government (click here), then you discover that has authored several papers concerning these issues. In April 2008 he wrote a paper on GAG ORDERS and he's written several papers on the subject of Civil Contempt.

Equal access to justice is a concept that we all must be willing to fight for. If the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure are being applied in an arbitrary manner; it is incumbent upon all of us to review the records of those in prison in North Carolina to determine if they are there in large part because of the color of their skin or their station in life.

Police State: A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the state.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.

We can no longer sit back and wait another generation for purportedly good and decent men and women to finally take the seats of power and view the Constitution in a color-blind manner.

Always Give Them The Fight They Deserve...Not The Fight They Want!

39. The final agency decision of the North Carolina Board of Nursing was upheld by the Court. However, Plaintiff Johnson discovered that Monroe Jackson Nichols, general counsel for the board, had removed a compact disc containing exculpatory evidence from the Superior Court file, prior to the Judicial Review Hearing and that the Defendants had conspired with attorney Nichols to prevent Johnson from calling witnesses and receiving a fair hearing. Additionally, it is upon information and belief that the Defendants conspired to cover up the theft of the compact disc containing the exculpatory evidence. (Complaint page 12)

Negligent Hiring, Supervision

and Retention

"You violate my civil rights at your own professional peril; for to grant you quarter presently will surely condemn others to your future unchallenged tyranny"

----Baron Alfred [K]ennyson

Never choose state imposed silence over the threat of death; for imposed silence, unopposed is death certain.

Shakespeare (NR)

The quality of [justice] is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The [elected judge] better than his [robe].
His [rulings] show the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of [judges].