We filed Federal lawsuit against Roy Cooper, Atty Gen for NC
Roy Cooper has repeatedly not only refused to protect us as a non-profit but covered up frauds we reported in two successive election cycles. His failure to do his sworn duty pales in comparison to his subversion of the law for his own personal gain. He has refused to talk with us and has left us no alternative.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Craig Northacker & Vets-Help.org-NC, Inc.
vs. Case No. 5:16CV199
Roy Cooper, in his capacity as
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA,
A. JURISDICTION Jurisdiction is proper in this court according to:
XXX 42 U.S.C.§1983
42 U.S.C. §1985
Other (Please specify)
1. Name of Plaintiff: Craig Northacker Address: 121 Rolling Hill Road, Suite 230
Mooresville, NC 28117
2. Name of Plaintiff: Vets-Help.org-NC, Inc.
Address: 121 Rolling Hill Road, Suite 230
Mooresville, NC 28117
3. Name of Defendant: Roy Cooper Address: Attorney General’s Office
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
Is employed as Attorney General at the State of North Carolina.
Was the defendant acting under the authority or color of state law at the time
these claims occurred? YES XX NO , if “YES” briefly explain:
Defendant was at all times, and is currently, the Attorney General for the State of North Carolina.
C. NATURE OF CASE
Why are you bringing this case to court? Please explain the circumstances that led to the problem.
Defendant is the NC State Attorney General and presides over the judicial system in North Carolina. I tried to file felony theft and unlawful conversion charges on multiple occasions with various police and sheriff offices in Iredell, Richmond and Rowan Counties in North Carolina. Each time the officers refused to take a police report. I petitioned the Attorney General, who covered up the frauds for his own political benefit. These are major First Amendment violations with respect to not allowing me to petition the government. I am 63 years old with significant injuries and toxic exposures incurred as a paratrooper during military service. The violations in turn caused me significant financial harm and permanent emotional and physiological damage, as it did for my family including a minor child. They prevented the non-profit from helping any of the 32,000 plus veterans who committed suicide during this time frame and enabled the first con artist to steal a trust fund for a young autistic girl with a single mother, which would not have happened had defendant done his sworn job. The second time was with respect to fraud against the taxpayers of North Carolina which would have involved the Democratic leadership in Richmond County during this election cycle that may have impacted his getting votes to become Governor in 2016. Defendant buried my complaint for 90 days, and replied only after Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest called to find out what was happening. Defendant’s office hastily crafted a reply which was filled with lies and supports crime against a targeted group normally protected by an Attorney General. This is in violation of trust for the public good, which is his defined responsibility by law. Allowing these crimes to go unreported and/or covered up and/or not acted upon de facto makes him an accomplice to these frauds.
I affirm that I have had no help from anyone in writing and filing this action.
D. CAUSE OF ACTION
I allege that my constitutional rights, privileges or immunities have been violated and that the following facts form the basis for my allegations: (If necessary you may attach additional pages)
a. (1) Count 1: Denial of First Amendment Rights.
(2) Supporting Facts:
1. Craig Northacker is a seriously disabled veteran who founded Vets-Help.org-NC, Inc, to help military, veterans and families reintegrate back into their communities.
2. John Nicholson, NC State Military Attache at the time (2011), invited us to set up in North Carolina in support of Manpower to Horsepower set up by Sue Roberson. We determined that she was a con artist who wound up stealing funds and assets from plaintiffs while purporting to be a legitimate charity. (See attached).
3. Plaintiff performed typical accounting and reviews of documents, programs, etc, while funding the Manpower program in good faith based on the recommendation of Nicholson, the Governor’s Military Affairs Advisor.
4. Roberson was determined by plaintiff after normal due diligence while funding the program to not have any documents filed with the NC DOS incorporating Manpower as a non-profit corporation.
5. Plaintiff discussed with Nicholson, Roberson, and the NC Charity office the issues and the decision was made to bring everything under the Vets-Help umbrella.
6. Plaintiff continued due diligence and discovered that Roberson was not forthcoming with details as to how she had funded operations until that point. It turned out she owed over $ 100,000 to the landlord, who subsequently filed and received a judgement against her. (Attached)
7. Plaintiff continued to fund the semester for the RPCC program to allow the students to successfully finish out their semester. We funded student’s personal rents, utilities, food and other funds as well as took care of the many other personal needs.
8. Plaintiff funded the operations of the Manpower Program in the reasonable belief that it was about to get major state support through Nicholson, who orchestrated the Governor visiting the facilities, giving a letter of support, and introducing us to other key government representatives.
9. Plaintiff borrowed $150,000 personally to fund operations on top of using other personal money and money supplied to Manpower from plaintiff accounts.
10. Plaintiff at all times conducted itself professionally and with propriety.
11. Plaintiff ran a background check as soon as the semester ended and discovered Roberson had 30 aliases and a slew of other companies opening and closing. Additional debts were discovered.
12. Plaintiff spoke with students and other associates of Roberson who advised us she sold meth out of her house, from which she was evicted. This information was credible based upon the lack of legitimate means of Roberson to support her house and Manpower operations.
13. Plaintiff tried several times to reach Nicholson, who was playing hard to reach. We finally got hold of him after informing him by email that Roberson was a con artist.
14. Nicholson refused to talk with us saying he was under investigation by the NC AG office. Nicholson continued to aid and abet the frauds by Roberson by getting a law firm to try to intimidate us despite his being aware of the extent of her frauds. (Letter attached). Nicholson also intervened and helped Roberson file for and receive a NC non-profit status despite his awareness of her con games. This constitutes aid and abetting a fraud by a government official.
15. Plaintiff tried to file felony complaints with the Sheriff of Rowan County, who refused to take any complaint. This is a clear violation of my First Amendment Rights to petition the government. Defendant committed selective prosecution by his failure to prosecute the fraud per his sworn responsibility.
16. Plaintiff, during the course of trying to file a complaint, was verbally attacked by a Sheriff’s Deputy who tried to discredit us, come up with paperwork that was way out of line and scope, and continued to victimize us by refusing to do his job as mandated by his oath to the Constitution. This uncalled for and illegal antic made me upset, and since I have many medical issues, caused me undue distress.
17. Plaintiff went to the Rowan County Magistrate who refused to take a complaint without the support of the Sheriff’s office.
18. Plaintiff spoke with Brandy Cook, the Rowan County DA, who informed us they did not allow felony complaints to be filed because they were behind on prosecuting criminal cases.
19. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the NC DOT to recover the Silverado since the Sheriff refused to take any reports and the DA refused to allow any filings. The NC DOT came through and a Statesville based Agent took my complaint and eventually was able to recover the truck after almost 6 month’s illegal possession by Roberson. Roberson relied on the advice of Nicholson and his cronies to try to illegally keep my truck.
20. The Agent went with plaintiff to file a complaint with the Rowan County Magistrate, who again refused to take the Agent’s complaint. Our very frustrated Agent eventually prevailed to get the complaint filed.
21. The case came up in front of Judge Mary-Beth Dixon, who was sanctioned for failing to observe civil rights laws in a different case. The Judge, despite knowing of my medical issues, allowed crowding and medically unacceptable events to transpire in her court during the hearing. The ADA failed to make any statements or press any prosecution. She was under the belief the Attorney General would do his job and prosecute the case.
22. The judge refused to allow me to show the “evidence” produced by the defense was erroneous and did not show any ownership rights for the truck. Roberson never made any financial payments either at time of purchase or during the course of the financing and had no incidents of ownership or responsibility, including failing to obtain vehicle insurance. This simple fact alone was enough to dismiss her defense. Instead, the Judge abruptly stopped the trial as I was about to show the inapplicability of their “evidence”, and dismissed the case.
23. The judge did not follow appropriate behavior observing plaintiff civil rights and medical needs during the hearing and denied my right to due diligence and a fair trial, since I was the only one questioned and deposed.
24. Plaintiff filed a letter to the NC Attorney General detailing all of the above, and included specific details such as the theft of my new Silverado HD 3500, office equipment, funds and personal effects, as well as scurrilous business practices. As mentioned above, despite a cursory investigation which ignored the many details in several hundred pages submitted in support my complaint, the AG not only assisted Roberson in getting her own non-profit status, he enabled and abetted her ability to commit additional fraud.
25. Plaintiff discovered Roberson subsequently conned a mother of a young autistic daughter out her trust fund under the guise of doing a movie about veterans. Roberson was subsequently convicted of this crime. (Attached)
26. Plaintiff also failed a complaint with the US DOJ, and was contacted by an FBI agent who looked at the case and determined that it was below the multi-million dollar threshold the federal prosecutors used to determine what case to follow. The Agent advised me that the scam artists in our country knew this and flew just under the radar and were being more successful than not in getting away with it.
27. Plaintiff gave the Charlotte FBI office hundreds of documents in support of the complaint upon the advice of the Agent. The Agent also confirmed that the civil rights violations by local police refusing to take felony complaints was rampant throughout the State of North Carolina.
28. Upon stated information and belief, Roy Cooper, the Attorney General, has illegally denied plaintiff to file a complaint under our Federal Rights law, and has established that policy of refusing local police filings statewide.
29. Roy Cooper, as Attorney General, failed to take credible evidence submitted and protect Plaintiff from a scam artist, then legalized Roberson, who then scammed again. Roy Cooper, as Attorney General, bears full responsibility of his failure to follow civil rights, aided and abetted Roberson in allowing her to perform another con, and by failing to do his job failed to safeguard citizens, veterans and disabled persons.
30. Roy Cooper, as Attorney General, failed to serve the one million military, veteran and family population by not only allowing, but aiding and abetting the continuing fraud, and had a direct hand in our inability to help any of the over 32,000 veterans who have committed suicide since Plaintiff first approached the Attorney General for his assistance, and to simply do his job as mandated by law and in the customs and belief of his constituents.
31. Roy Cooper, by his failure to do his job, tortuously interfered with our mandated mission as a non-profit.
32. Roy Cooper, by his failure to do his job, harmed the families and minors of any of those who committed suicide, when his job is to protect the children, elderly and disabled, among others, in North Carolina.
33. The timing of the majority of these actions occurred in 2012 during the last Gubernatorial election process. Plaintiff has been advised by others that that were potential political concerns that played a roll in his failure to address our complaint.
b. (1) Count 2: Denial of First Amendment Rights.
(2) Supporting Facts:
34. Craig Northacker is a seriously disabled veteran who founded Vets-Help.org-NC, Inc, to help military, veterans and families reintegrate back into their communities.
35. Plaintiff retained Laurie Eberhart, Esq, of the law firm Moretz and Skufca in 2014, to further assist in restarting our programs helping military, veterans and families using our platform of racing to decompress our constituents combined with medical wellness programs and vocational training.
36. Plaintiff sustained serious financial losses and physiological distress by Defendant’s numerous failures enumerated above in Count 1. Ms. Eberhart introduced me to Andy Hillenburg, one of the owners of Rockingham Speedway, which was about to go into foreclosure because of extended non-payment of the notes to the bank.
37. Plaintiff and Hillenburg entered into a relationship where Plaintiff would be allowed to acquire the property to develop a major reintegration center while being able to use a historic track. The location was relatively close to Fort Bragg, the largest Army installation in the country.
38. Plaintiff went to court and filed documents asserting our interest in acquiring the property, and an order was issued by Judge Lee to give us the opportunity to buy the note from the bank.
39. Despite the court order, the bank refused to ever talk with us to allow us to negotiate. During our review of the offending bank we discovered numerous serious issues, including an order from the Comptroller of the Treasury of the United States to shore up its’ capital, and that the bank had made a recent capital call but was unable to raise capital.
40. The bank was perilously close to violating Federal standards by having too many non-performing loans against the required capital. We extracted the details of the make-up of their core business which was questionable and risky.
41. These issues, plus others, made us realize that the bank could not take any offers from us without getting approval from governing Agencies. This was never disclosed to us.
42. Plaintiff uncovered that the bank sustained a statistically material loss in the previous year but declared and paid a $ 1.2 million dividend despite having capitalization issues and despite have a material loss.
43. Plaintiff uncovered that the Bank had caused a $ 2 million distribution from their ESOP program. The trustees of the ESOP are required to maintain the value of the shares of stock on behalf of the participants. Pension laws are governed by the IRS, the PBGC, and the Department of Labor.
44. Plaintiff petitioned the Defendant, Roy Cooper, Attorney General for North Carolina, for his assistance in this matter and to verify that the bank was both solvent and was operating correctly with an eye to the business discrepancies and our related significant concerns on behalf of the account-holders and the employees, and the City of Salisbury and other locales where the bank had branches.
45. The bank, by its’ unreasonable denial of entering into conversations with us, and by failing to disclose the very material issue that they did not control the amount that the note could be settled for, did not operate with clean hands and caused us substantial delays and capital.
46. Plaintiff included these facts and backup in its request for the Attorney General to intercede. The Attorney General forwarded my complaint to the Banking Commissioner, who sent an innocuous letter without detailing any of our concerns to the head of the bank, who responded in kind. The charade accomplished nothing, to our great detriment.
47. Plaintiff secured interest from a financial institution to fund a minimum of $ 50 million to rebuild the track at Rockingham, open up an excellent off-campus college curriculum with Richmond County Community College, initiated discussions with CSX to work with us, among many other major groups.
48. Richmond County is the 5th poorest county in North Carolina with just over a 46,000 populace. A $ 50 million dollar investment has an economic multiplier of 3 resulting in a $ 150 million benefit to the County. In addition, we would have become the third largest employer in Richmond County. A prospective payroll of another $ 25 million per year would result in a multiplied effect of $ 75 million per year, along with goods and services procured from the surrounding community. Richmond County has a poverty rate of 24.7%. There were 797 total employers with 11,315 employees per the US Census. The per capita income was $17,982, with a median household income of $34,000. By all counts the success of our project would have been an enormous boost to the economy, and was denied due to the violation of our First Amendment rights to redress the wrongs.
49. 14,001 of the county’s residents received assistance from the food and nutrition services (or food stamps) program in December 2015, with 30.8% of residents receiving assistance. Due to the return of the harsh three-month time limit for nondisabled childless adults, 1,022 people in this county (and more than 100,000 statewide) could lose food assistance in 2016 if they don’t meet certain exemptions. 14,295 people in the county were eligible for Medicaid in December 2015, an increase of 30.9% since December 2007 when the recession began. Estimates suggest that 1,858 North Carolinians in the county would benefit from Medicaid Expansion, delivering $44.5 million in economic benefits to the county. In 2013, 6,082 tax filers in the county claimed the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which lawmakers allowed to expire that year. The tax credit went to people that worked but earned low wages, and the benefits totaled $784,151 in the county. These were dollars that helped workers make ends meet by allowing them to keep more of what they earned to support their children.
50. AVAILABILITY OF JOBS: There were 1,316 people looking for work in Richmond County compared to 695 job openings in December 2015. The county’s unemployment rate was 7.8% in December 2015 compared to 7.3% in December 2014. There were 3,302 fewer employed people in the county in December 2015 than there were in December 2007 (when the Great Recession began). POVERTY AND ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: 24.7% of county residents (11,033 people) lived in poverty and struggled to make ends meet in 2014; the state poverty rate was 17.2%.3. 37.2% of children in the county (3,939 children) lived in poverty in 2014, compared to 24.1% statewide. The poverty rate varies by race: 34.7% of African Americans in the county lived in poverty compared to 17.2% of whites on average from 2010 to 2014. 49.8% of the county’s residents were low-income on average from 2010 to 2014, meaning their incomes were less than twice the federal poverty level ($47,700 for a family of four in 2014).
51. Plaintiff tried in vain to negotiate a purchase contract, and decided to create a lease with the track with the option to buy. Plaintiff exercised the option, and offer a contract for $ 2.7 million, which was agreed to by Hillenburg, and signed off on by both parties. Billy Silas, the hitherto quiet partner of Hillenburg, refused to sign, which was discovered during the due diligence by our investors. We were under the impression from our lawyer that everything was proper, which it was not.
52. The bank finally decided to talk albeit not with us, and interfered with the purchase price, causing it to be increased to $ 2.95 million, almost a ten per cent increase on an otherwise blighted property that sat vacant for the preceding three years.
53. Plaintiff again went to our investors who noted that Silas had refused to sign, and that his signature was needed. This was in violation of the order signed by the presiding judge.
54. Plaintiff continued to examine various records and discovered items of environmental concern that plaintiff saw on the deed, which was overlooked by counsel. Plaintiff expanded the investigation and found that Silas was given a stop order by NC Environmental Agents because of his dumping of unclean fill at Fort Bragg where new housing was to be built.
55. A smaller race track was built shortly after the stop order was issued. One corner of the smaller track had given way, and we were concerned that Silas used the track as a device to get rid of other unclean fill including white goods and other construction debris. This would be an environmental violation on top of the one at Fort Bragg, and in reasonable proximity. We asked for clarification from the NC Agency but was never responded to.
56. Silas resides in Florida, and his main office for his numerous businesses is also in Florida. Plaintiff uncovered during additional review the fact that both Silas and his attorney had numerous offshore companies through the Panamanian law firm whose client list was exposed.
57. Plaintiff, during its continuing review, was told there had been a $ 950,000 grant issued by the Richmond County Economic Development office to be used to build Safer barriers in order to attract NASCAR races back to the track. We asked for documentation, which was refused, but were told that $ 250,000 was to be repaid starting in subsequent years. We needed to know all outstanding liabilities and were provided with records showing that the Safer barrier company had been paid a little over $100,000 by Hillenburg, and was still owed $780,000 without any interest. Plaintiff received appropriate documents from the Southern Bleacher Company detailing the transactions, who agreed to work with us.
58. Plaintiff, with its’ ongoing investigations, only found $700,000 in deposits out of the $950,000, of which about $500,000 was paid directly to NASCAR for the sanction fee required to book the race. This, and other expenses, were used in violation of the nature of the grant as reported to us.
59. Plaintiff, in continuing investigation, found that Hillenburg deposited a major insurance claim for wind damage. Plaintiff contacted the vendors paid in turn to effect the repairs. None of the vendors did any work at the track for the purported wind damage. These deposits improperly inflated the revenue on the financial statements which we believe were used as a basis to have the $950,000 grant to be issued as part of standard due diligence.
60. Plaintiff believes these numbers were deliberately inflated which in turn causes potential bank fraud and fraud against the taxpayers of North Carolina and potentially the United States, depending on where the proceeds of the grant were initiated.
61. Plaintiff reviewed corporate tax returns and found material discrepancies. These discrepancies were enough to warrant immediate review by the State Tax authorities.
62. Plaintiff did not find any compensation taken by Silas and Hillenburg. Silas’s company was paid for work on the new smaller track.
63. Plaintiff observes that since these actions, and significant financial dramas, occurred with conversation and documents crossing state lines, create a nexus for the Federal Government to take over investigations, especially with off-shore companies and any bank accounts related to those companies, or others. Plaintiff did not see Hillenburg’s name listed on these accounts, but the combination of banking, environment, financial, and tax issues, combined with off-shore accounts, could be the grounds to warrant a RICO investigation, which presumably includes an examination of the offending bank, Farmers and Merchant, based in Salisbury, also known as FM Financial.
64. Plaintiff tried to file felony complaints with the Richmond County Sheriff, who declined to accept them, who told me specifically to take them to the Attorney General, which we did. This constitutes another First Amendment violation.
65. Plaintiff tried to get the County Attorney to act on the complaints. He refused, stating conflict of interest, and also refused to recuse himself and appoint another prosecutor. This constitutes another First Amendment violation.
66. Plaintiff went to the Richmond County Court House to enter the complaint as a public document. During the process of filing the document as a public document, the conversation with one of the clerks allowed that no attorney would take our case in Richmond County, which turned out to be true.
67. Accordingly, Plaintiff believes there is significant collusion in Richmond County, which has a Democrat leadership, which in turn begets political considerations by the Attorney General in again refusing to investigate during this Gubernatorial election cycle, in which he is running as the Democratic nominee for Governor.
68. Plaintiff once again petitioned the Defendant, Roy Cooper, Attorney General for the State of North Carolina, to review of all the many disturbing facts and circumstances which once again make up a pattern of fraud against the citizens of North Carolina.
69. Plaintiff, on the 88th day after not hearing anything definitive from the AG, called the AG office and asked the answering clerk to verify if the complaint was filed and logged in. The clerk replied in the negative, and stated, upon being questioned, that the average time in responding to a consumer complaint was 10 days.
70. Plaintiff, on the 89th day after not hearing anything definitive from the AG, again called the AG office and asked a different answering clerk the same questions, which affirmed the previous day’s answers.
71. Plaintiff, on the 89th day after not hearing anything definitive from the AG, and after the second conversation with the answering clerk, called the office of the LT Governor Dan Forest to ask if they could find out what was going on.
72. Plaintiff, on the 90th day after not hearing anything definitive from the AG, received an email late in the day stating that the clerks were mistaken, the case had indeed been entered, and that the decision had been not made to follow the substantial amounts of fraud because they did not impact a larger group of constituents, and that the office of the AG was not to protect non-profits, but to only seek out bad ones.
73. This letter contains disingenuous information and outright lies on its face. It was signed by a senior official directly under the AG.
74. Plaintiff was once again denied any relief and/or remedy for the frauds. Plaintiff believes the AG, by ignoring the complaint for 90 days, was burying the investigation to protect his favorable electorate base in Richmond County to positively influence the results of the election for his direct benefit during this Gubernatorial election cycle to the detriment of the Plaintiff and the citizens of North Carolina, our military, veterans and their families, our disabled, and our at-risk communities by once again aiding and abetting criminal activity, and by giving notice to criminals that he will not protect non-profits from criminal acts.
75. Plaintiff believes this insipid refusal is full evidence of callous and wanton disregard for our military and veteran lives, their families including minor children, and the at-risk communities we are fighting to implement our “Stem in the Hood” programs in but cannot because of the abject failure of our Attorney to do his job for his own personal gain.
76. Plaintiff believes that the Defendant’s massive failure to honor commitment to the First Amendment is an egregious violation of his oath of office and constitutes an ethical violation.
77. Plaintiff believes that the massive failure to observe the First Amendment encourages crime to the detriment of the citizens of North Carolina, as has been described elsewhere in this complaint.
78. Plaintiff believes that the massive failure to observe the First Amendment, which plaintiff believes encourages criminals, also is a critical failure that was inherent in the recent rioting in Charlotte.
79. Plaintiff believes that the well-documented issues between the police and various communities are in part because of the failure to allow the First Amendment to be observed, the encouragement of criminal activity by refusing to prosecute well-documented cases, and political considerations over the proper execution of his sworn duties.
80. Plaintiff further believes that these effects are additional artificial barriers, unnecessary, and unconstitutional, and have led to unnecessary bloodshed and heartbreak of the police and the communities because of the willful failure of defendant to perform his stated duties.
81. Plaintiff believes the Defendant, by his willful failure to do perform his mandated duties, and for personal political gain, has materially and negatively hurt our economy in North Carolina, which in turn impacts the well-being of every North Carolinian, in complete contravention of his assertions otherwise contained in the AG’s letter declining review.
How have you been injured by the actions of the defendant(s)?
Plaintiff lost significant dollars supporting programs which were undertaken by invitation from Governor Perdue’s Administration. Plaintiff has serious medical complications, and these issues are shared by my family, which were irreversibly compounded the abject failure and callous and wanton disregard for human lives and suffering because of his failure to perform his sworn duties, including the upholding and defending of our Constitution. These First Amendment violations have caused me to spend too much time away from my supportive and suffering family with devastating financial consequences. Defendant touts his strong family values while denying me access to my family while I try to recover from his incredible indifference to our First Amendment rights.
Plaintiff has suffered irreversible physiological demise initially incurred during airborne and other operations while in the military. Plaintiff has been unable to have consistent medical and physical treatment within the Veterans Administration because of the gaps when I am away from my primary center. The VA allows only one main treatment center. This has also caused significant distress when I run out of medicine and encounter jurisdictional restrictions in getting prescriptions refilled.
Plaintiff can no longer walk with any degree of normalcy and has been wrongfully emotionally beaten down by the violation of First Amendment rights.
Plaintiff has been continuously and systematically denied civil rights in different counties over time. Plaintiff has experienced tortuous interference by the willful failure to observe our rights under the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff has many programs that have been unreasonably delayed to the detriment of everyone involved, including the over 32,000 veterans, per government estimates, who have committed suicide since we first tried to file petitions. There are 32,000 families dealing with unnecessary and preventable grief, including children who will never get to experience their parents watching them and participating as they grow up the way the Defendant’s family has. We could not implement our programs because of violations of our very basic civil rights we fought for, were injured for, and continue to die for because of VA denials. The Defendant, by his failure to observe the very rights we died and were injured for, and to which we all swore an oath of allegiance, has horribly betrayed us all.
Plaintiff, despite his obligation as Attorney General to protect children, has denied my children my ability to be with them, and thereby causing enormous and completely unwarranted emotional strain on my entire family.
Plaintiff prays for relief accordingly – not just for us, but to allow us to implement our corporate mission for the many millions we have been endeavoring to provide with excellent programs.
F. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
Have you filed other lawsuits in state or federal court that deal with the same facts that
are involved in this action? YES NO XX
If your answer is “YES”, describe each lawsuit. (If there is more than one lawsuit, describe additional lawsuits on additional separate pages, using the same outline.)
1. Parties to previous lawsuits:
Plaintiff(s): N/A Defendants(s): N/A
2. Name of court and case or docket number: N/A
3. Disposition (for example, was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?) N/A
4. Issued raised: N/A
5. When did you file the lawsuit? Date: Month/Year N/A
6. When was it (will it be) decided? N/A
Have you previously sought informal or form relief from the appropriate administrative
officials regarding the acts complained of in Part D? YES XXX NO
If your answer is “YES” briefly describe how relief was sought and the results. If your answer is “NO” explain why administrative relief was not sought.
The police continued to refuse write a police report. I was told the second time to submit the enormous amount of fraud against the public to the Defendant, who buried it. There is a significant, pervasive and ongoing atmosphere of violation of First Amendment rights that exists under the direct leadership and control by the defendant. These denials may also be an underlying cause of the rioting in Charlotte earlier this year. The abject failure of the defendant to discharge his required duty then becomes a root cause for the violence.
G. REQUEST FOR RELIEF I believe I am entitled to the following relief:
Restitution of losses, nontaxable compensation for emotional and physical duress, loss of profits and funding opportunities, penalties. Order to force police compliance with the First Amendment and other similar laws of the land. Sanctioning of the Attorney General for the various violations described herein, and any other investigations, rights, remedies or other actions that the Federal Prosecutor may deem appropriate.
JURY TRIAL REQUESTED YES XXX NO
Signed at Mooresville, NC on . (Location) (Date)
Address: 121 Rolling Hill Road, Suite 230, Mooresville, NC 28117
Phone: (704) 770-5621