Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Kasler v. Bridges (No. 06-29)

Supreme Cour U.S.

ILED

CA) 96-29 MAR 15 2006

‘ OFFICE OF THE CLERK

O. ;

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Kurt Siferd Kasler

Petitioner

Vv.

Kevin Bridges, et al

Respondents

On Petition For Writ of Certiorari

To The Supreme Court of North Carolina

Kurt Siferd Kasler

220 Dalton St.

Charlotte, N.C.

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Is the State of North Carolina obligated under

the Fourteenth Article in Amendment of the

Constitution of the United States to provide

and guarantee Petitioner due process of law

prior to any deprivation of liberty, and if

public officials do not, does Petitioner have a

right to redress for damages?

li

LIST OF NAMED PARTIES

Kurt Siferd Kasler, Petitioner

Kevin Bridges, Respondent

Attorney for Kevin Bridges

David J. Adinolfi, IT

Asst. Attorney General

P.O. Box 629

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

William Robert Medlin, Respondent

Randall Garvin Miller, Respondent

Joseph L. Clough VI, Respondent

Attorney for Medlin, Miller,

and Clough

William L. Hill

Moss, Mason & Hill

P.O. Box 9597

Greensboro, N.C. 27429

Francisco Luis Irizarry, Respondent

Attorney for F.L. Irizarry

Terry M. Sholar, City of Monroe

P.O. Box 69

Monroe, N.C. 28111

lil

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Questions Presented for Review...... i

List of Named Parties............ 00-00 ii

Table of Contents...........00scceccee sees ili

Table of Cited Authorities.......... iv, V, vi

Citations of Reports of Opinions..... oe

Statement of Basis of Jurisdiction..... 2

Statement of Petitioner’s Case........ 3-7

Reasons for Granting the Petition

fou Walk OF Cesther all « ck vccccccsisece 7-13

NE goo i ccc kad cna sRinibeea 14

1V

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

Page

The Constitution of the United States

of America, Fourteenth Article in

PTE sccintdivunécivwis tccmnconeuneascaml

The Constitution of the United States

of America, Fifth and Sixth Articles in

PI oii siviccs sea sicnnccdrbandeaveseanaias

North Carolina General Statute

Ee Ce Cai en ten danins lnncakesepibibnd stecnceinie®

North Carolina General Statute

DINO LOE AD vivcsanccciccesacevesecicuare. wvadansudeot

North Carolina General Statute

North Carolina General Statute

SAG) viscnscheies 0iscss tivpssdovesesicncaisas?

North Carolina Constitution,

POTRCIe Fi OT vented sts sav ecsiscdoreincvincee

North Carolina Constitution,

Pett STD vc ciicenniitasitedesavevivicdsintac en

In Re Oliver 333 U.S, 257... 2.0000 cssccccees 9

In Re Little 404 U.S. 553..........0.cceeeeees 9

Vv

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

Page

Mayberry vs.

Pennsylvania 400 U.S. 455............00e00ees 9

Gross vs. Lopez 419 U.S. 565.........0000009

Washington vs. Texas 388 U.S. 14.........9

Argersinger vs. Hamlin 407 U.S. 25...... 10

Baldwin vs. New York 399 U.S. 73 ....... 11

Foucha vs. Louisiana 504 U.S. 71.......... 11

Parham vs. J.R. 442 U.S. 584 ................11

Jones vs. U.S. 463 U.S. 354 ..............0011

Carey vs. Pithus 435 U.S. 247.........ss0000 11

O’Connor vs. Donaldson 422 U.S. 563...11

Cleveland Board of Education vs.

Loudermiill 470 U.S, S32. ...cessccccccessee eves 11

Mullane vs. Central Hanover Bank

Be Freee Cs Be Ui acne dei cas vceveciucacee 12

Concrete Pipe and Products of CA

vs. Construction Laborers Pension

Trust for Southern CCA 508 U.S. 602....12

vi

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

Page

Ward vs. Monroeville 409 U.S. 57........ 12

Fuentes vs. Shevin 407 U.S. 67.............2. 12

State ex rel Caldwell vs. Wilson 121

N.C. 425, 121 N.C. 480, 28 S.E. 554......... 12

Parish vs. East Coast Cedar Co. 133

N.C. 478, 45 S.E. 768.. a ae

Eason vs. Spence 232 N.C. 579,

61 S.E. 2d 717......s0ccecseeseceecseceeeeseeesveehd

Parker vs. Stewie 29 N.C. “PP. 747,

225 S.E. 2d 632.. obs picauleewsinesbihiennle

Utica Mut. Ins. Co. vs. Johnson 41

N.C. App. 299, 254 S.E. 2d 634......... 2.00 13

First Union National Bank vs. Rolfe

83 N.C. App. 625, 351 S.E. 2d 117........+4. 13

Hamadi vs. Rumsfeld.............0secceeeeeed4

1

CITATIONS OF REPORTS OF OPINIONS

: Page

Appendix (A)

Judgment/ Order or other disposition

Superior Court of Union County...App. 2-3

Appendix (B)

Order dismissing charges for insufficiency of

citations, Superior Court of Union

OEY fies pitncvass cer encrentereteeieties App. 4-5

Appendix (C)

Order dismissing Plaintiff's action, Superior

~ Court of Union County................ App. 6-9

Appendix (D)

IHORICE OF AIOIOEE, os ccnccscvtsrsncnseneni App.10

Appendix (E)

Order from Court of Appeals

denying Certiorari.........0.......066 App. 11-12

Appendix (F)

Order denying review, Supreme Court of

2

STATEMENT OF BASIS OF JURISDICTION

—

Petitioner has exhausted all remedies in the civil

courts of North Carolina. A Petition for review by

The Supreme Court of North Carolina was timely

filed and denied on the 3"4 day of November, 2005.

The jurisdiction of The Supreme Court of the United

States is invoked pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1257

(a) from the final judgment or decree rendered by

North Carolina’s highest Court, The Supreme Court

of North Carolina.

The Honorable Supreme Court of the United States

is the proper court with jurisdiction upon the timely

filing of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

3

STATEMENT OF PETITIONER’S CASE

This case arose as a result of an issuance of two

North Carolina Uniform Citations on March 2, 2004

for traffic offenses allegedly committed by

Petitioner. The citations were issued by Respondent

Irizarry, a City of Monroe, North Carolina police

officer. The citations were filed in the District Court,

Union County, North Carolina, and stated that

Petitioner was to appear at said court on April 8,

2004.

Between March 2, 2004 and April 7, 2004 Petitioner

visited the clerk of Union County District Court to

inspect the file in regards to the citations. Petitioner

noticed that the citations (original white signed

documents) were assigned criminal file numbers.

On April 7, 2004 Petitioner filed a Mandatory

Judicial Notice into the criminal file challenging the

procedure in which the court's alleged subject

matter jurisdiction was invoked. Petitioner con-

tends that the procedure of commencing a

criminal prosecution by the clerk of the Union

County District Court was unconstitutional, a

violation of the Separation of Powers under

Article 1, § 6 of the North Carolina Constitution

in that the District Attorney of Union County,

North Carolina is the only public official

authorized to commence a criminal action.

4

On April 8, 2004 Petitioner made a special visit

to the Union County District Court to challenge

the court’s subject matter jurisdiction due to

unconstitutional procedures.

Respondent Bridges, while still in a ministerial

capacity, was the presiding judge at the alleged

arraignment hearing on April 8, 2004. Petitioner,

upon challenging jurisdiction, was asked to enter a

plea. Petitioner conditionally accepted the offer to

plea upon presentment of a charging instrument

signed by the prosecutor. No charging instrument

was ever produced, and upon the mere waiving of

said Respondent's hand, Petitioner was immediately

assaulted, arrested, handcuffed, and imprisoned by

Respondents Medlin, Miller, and Clough

Respondent Bridges did not state or inform

Petitioner as to why Petitioner was being

incarcerated and deprived of liberty. The record is

void as to any written order authorizing

incarceration. However, the record does show a

release order.

Petitioner was restrained of liberty and incarcerated

approximately one and a half hours. Petitioner was

brought again before Respondent Bridges and asked

to sign a waiver of rights. Petitioner altered the

waiver of rights form in such a way as to reserve all

of Petitioner’s rights and notified Respondent

5

Bridges that Respondent Bridges’ actions were

clearly an abuse of process. Petitioner signed the

waiver under threat, duress, legal coercion, and fear~

of further incarceration.

Petitioner was informed by the clerk that a trial was

to be held on June 10, 2004. Petitioner involuntarily

appeared at the trial before Judge Lisa Thacker and

continued to challenge the court’s jurisdiction

without a charging instrument signed by the

prosecutor. Judge Thacker threatened Petitioner

with 30 days incarceration for contempt if Petitioner

did not enter a plea. During this time, Petitioner

was surrounded by approximately 15-20 police and

Sheriff deputies in open court. Under the fear of

further incarceration and abuse of process,

Petitioner involuntarily entered a plea of irnocent.

Petitioner was subsequently found guilty by a court

without subject matter or personal jurisdiction. It

is clear from Judge Thacker’s actions that Petitioner

was punished for exercising a clear right guaranteed

under the Fifth and Sixth Articles in Amendment as

previewed through the Fourteenth Article in

Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

of America. As of this Petition for Writ of Certiorari,

Petitioner has yet to be informed and know the

nature and cause of the incarceration.

Without recourse, Petitioner De Novoed Judge Lisa

Thacker’s ruling to the Superior Court of Union

6

County, North Carolina on July 27, 2004. Petitioner

appeared in the Superior Court of Union County on

August 2, 2004 for the hearing De Novo.

At the August 2, 2004 hearing, Petitioner again

challenged the court's jurisdiction without a’

pleading signed and issued by the District Attorney.

After the completion of the hearing, Judge Michael

E. Beale issued an order for continuance until

Respondent Irizarry appeared before a Magistrate to

determine probable cause and afford the State an

opportunity to issue a new and proper pleading.

See order in Appendix A.

Petitioner was again summonsed to the Superior

Court of Union County before Judge W. David Lee.

Judge Lee dismissed all charges against Petitioner

for insufficiency of the citations as Petitioner had

alleged in the district court before Respondent

Bridges. The State was allowed to proceed if a

criminal summons was sworn before a magistrate by

Respondent Irizarry according to Judge Michael

Beale’s Order (Appendix A) of August 2, 2004. See

Judge W. David Lee’s order in Appendix B.

As of the date of the filing of this Petition for Writ of

Certiorari, Petitioner has never been asked to re-

appear in the Superior Court of Union County, and

no pleading by the State has been issued in regards

to the alleged criminal action.

7

Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against

Respondents as individual tort feasors for assault,

battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, and abuse

of process, as a result of the facts stated above.

Petitioner sued Respondent. individually and not in

an official capacity, as no statute, regulation, or

constitutional provision allows the deprivation of

rights in an official capacity. The Superior Court of

Union County dismissed Petitioner’s complaint (see

Appendix C).

On December 1, 2004 Petitioner filed a Notice of

Appeal in the Superior Court of Union County as to

Petitioner’s complaint. See Notice of Appeal,

Appendix D.

Respondents’ counsel filed a motion to dismiss

Petitioner’s appeal for allegedly failing to

substantially comply with Appellate Rules 7 and 11.

On April 22, 2005 Superior Court Judge Susan

Taylor dismissed Petitioner’s appeal.

On August 16, 2005 Petitioner filed a Petition for

Writ of Certiorari to the North Carolina Court of

Appeals. Petitioner’s Petition was denied on

September 1, 2005. See Order of Denial, Appendix

E.

On September 14, 2005 Petitioner filed a Petition to

certify the cause for discretionary review inthe |

North Carolina Supreme Court. The Supreme Court

8

issued an order dated the 3'¢ day of November 2005

refusing to review the North Carolina Court of

Appeals decision denying Petitioner’s Writ of

Certiorari. See Order as Appendix F.

-REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The Fourteenth Article in Amendment of the

Constitution of the United States of America, Section

1, states in part “... Nor shall any State deprive any

person of life, liberty, or property, without due

process of law; nor deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

The corresponding North Carolina constitutional

provision under the Declaration of Rights, Article 1,

Section 19, states in part “...No person shall be

taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold,

liberty, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in

any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property,

but by the law of the land. No person shall be

denied the equal protection of the laws...”.

Clearly, from the statement of facts aforementioned,

Petitioner is being denied due process and equal

protection of the laws by officials of the State of

North Carolina. These officials are obligated to

guarantee such protection to Petitioner upon taking

9

an office of trust and upon taking the oath of office

to support and defend both Constitutions.

During the hearing on Respondent Bridges’ motion

to dismiss Petitioner's tort complaint, by and

through counsel, Respondent argued and inferred

that Petitioner was somehow incarcerated for

possible contempt of court. The record of the

District Court of Union County clearly shows that

Petitioner was never adjudged summarily or

otherwise as being in contempt of court. North

Carolina law, under N.C.G:S. 5A-12, 5A-13, 5A-15,

5A-16 delineates the exact procedure to be followed

for a proceeding in contempt of court. The court

record is totally void of any warning, notice,

hearing, order or judgment as to any contempt. This

is obviously a clear denial of due process of law.

This court, in In Re Oliver 333 U.S. 257, In Re Little

404 U.S. 553, and Mayberry vs. Pennsylvania 400

U.S. 455, prescribes in depth justification for

contempt and certain procedural safeguards which

must be adhered to by employees of the State of

North Carolina.

This court has opinioned and stated that Petitioners

have a right to have oral and written notice of any

charges, and the right to be heard, and forbids the

state to deprive life, liberty, or property without due

process, Gross vs, Lopez 419 U.S. 565. This court

stated that Petitioners have the right to be informed

10

as to the nature and cause of any accusation,

Washington vs. Texas 388 U.S. 14, and, “The reason

for insuring these safeguards is to prevent and

guard against corrupt or over zealous prosecutors or

bias and eccentric judges,” Argersinger vs. Hamlin

407 US. 25.

Since the State of North Carolina has not pursued

any further criminal action in the Superior Court of

Union County against Petitioner, Petitioner must

assume that the State, from the inception of the

issuance of a “citation,” does not have probable

cause and that the State has not attained personal or = -

subject matter jurisdiction as to Petitioner.

Petitioner chose to file a complaint in tort in the

Superior Court of Union County in lieu of a civil

rights action in the federal forum under Title 42 -

U.S.C. § 1983 et seq. When North Carolina

dismissed Petitioner’s complaint in tort, Petitioner

was further threatened by the State and forbidden to

have access to said court at any other time in the

future, contrary to Article 1, Section 18 of the North

Carolina Constitution, “All courts shall be open;

every person for an injury done him in his lands,

goods, person,-or reputation shall have remedy by

due course of law; and right and justice shall be

administered without favor, denial, or delay”.

Clearly, North Carolina is denying Petitioner the

right to redress for damages for unlawful arrest and

11

imprisonment and the right to know why Petitioner

was incarcerated without reason.

This court has clearly explained that imprisonment

can be a serious denial of liberty, which demands

prior due process. In Baldwin vs. New York 399

U.S. 73, this court stated that ”...the prospect of

imprisonment for however short a time will seldom

be viewed by the accused as a trivial or petty matter

and may well result in quite serious repercussions

affecting his career and his reputation.” This court

reached the same conclusion in reference to restraint

of liberty in Foucha vs. Louisiana 504 U.S. 71 and

Parham vs. J.R. 442 U.S. 584.

This court has made the following statements

regarding deprivation of liberty:

“It is clear that commitment for any purpose

constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty

that requires due process protection” (Jones vs.

U.S. 463 U.S. 354)

“Procedural due process rules are meant to

protect persons not from the deprivation, but

from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of

life, liberty, or property” (Cavey vs. Pithus 435

U.S. 247)

“Mere public intolerance or animosity cannot

constitutionally justify the deprivation of a

12

person's physical liberty” (O’Connor vs.

Donaldson 422 U.S. 563).

These principles of due process have continued to be

the basic foundation in rulings of this court.

In Cleveland Board of Education vs. Loudermill 470

US. 532, this court stated, “An essential principle of

due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or

property be preceded by notice and opportunity for

hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.” See

also Mullane vs. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.

339 U.S. 306; Concrete Pipe and Products of CA vs.

Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern

CCA 508 U.S. 602; Ward vs. Monroeville 409 U.S. 57;

Fuentes vs. Shevin 407 U.S. 67.

North Carolina’s highest court, The Supreme Court,

has adjudicated that Petitioners have the right to

due process of law under Article 1, § 19 of the North

Carolina Constitution in reference to the term ‘law

of the land.’ “The law of the land means the general

law; a law which hears before it condemns; which

proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only

at the trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall

hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities

under the protection of the general rules which

govern society. Everything which may pass under

the form of an enactment is not, therefore, to be

considered the law of the land,” State ex rel

Caldwell vs. Wilson 121 N.C. 425, 121 N.C. 480, 28

13

S.E. 554. See also Parish vs. East Coast Cedar Co.

133 N.C. 478, 45 S.E. 768 and Eason vs. Spence 232

N.C. 579, 61 S.E. 2d 717.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina equates the

term “law of the land” to due process of law.

“Among other things, the law of the land or due

process of law imports both notice and the

opportunity to be heard before a competent

tribunal.” - Parker vs. Stewart 29 N.C. App. 747, 225

S.E. 2d 632. See also Utica Mut. Ins. Co. vs. Johnson

41 N.C. App. 299, 254 S.E. 2d 634: The North

Carolina Supreme Court further stated, “The law of

the land clause contained in this section (Article-l §

19) mandates that a party be given notice and an

opportunity to be heard before he or she can be

deprived of a legal claim or defense.” - First Union

National Bank vs. Rolfe 83 N.C. App. 625, 351 S.E.

2d 117.

Finally, as recently as 2004, this court reinforced the

importance of due process of law in Hamadi vs.

Rumsfeld, “These essential constitutional promises

may not be eroded.” These constitutional promises

are further acknowledged in North Carolina’s

Preamble of the Constitution, “We, the people of the

State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God,

the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation

of the American Union and the existence of our civil,

political, and religious liberty, and acknowledging

14

our dependence upon Him for the continuance of

those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the

more certain security thereof and for the better

government of this State, ordain and establish this

Constitution.”

15

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, Petitioner, Kurt Siferd Kasler,

respectfully requests this Honorable Supreme Court

of the United States to grant Petitioner’s Writ of

Certiorari to correct the wrongs in’!:cted upon

Petitioner without due process of law by the State of

North Carolina.

Respectfully submitted this \S*day of March, 2006

by: - /

r_)

urt Siferd Kasler, Petitioner

State of North Carolina)

. ) ss

County of Mecklenburg)

Before me a Notary for the State of North Carolina

did appear Kurt Siferd Kasler, who did affirm to the

foregoing document this _(@““~day of March, 2006.

Notary

My commission expires

Rr awe 31,3007

App. 1

INDEX OF APPENDICES AND EXHIBITS

Page

Appendix (A)

MEE cebetrpevezeces App. 2-3

Appendix (B)

RM chi duy avede wasn see App. 4-5

Appendix (C)

RU exh desbets sesv cee App. 6-9

Appendix (D)

Notice of Appeal......App. 10

Appendix (E)

RELL scebsaradccias App. 11-12

Appendix (F)

App. 2

“APPENDIX A”

State of North Carolina Judgment Order or

County of Union - Other Disposition

vs.

Kurt Siferd Kasler Case No. 04CRS2855

Defendant

In light of the fact that the defendant

contends that the citation is not sufficient,

the court directs this case be continued and

directs officer Irizarry to appear before the

Magistrate of this county relative to alleged

violations of the law by the defendant on or

about March 2, 2004 and that the magistrate

determine whether there is probable cause to

believe that a crime or crimes have been

committed.

If the magistrate finds there is probable

cause to believe that a crime or crimes have

been committed, he shall issue appropriate

warrants or criminal summons. If the

magistrate finds no probable cause to any of

this alleged crimes, he shall notify the court

App. 3

and the district attorney of his findings of no

probable cause.

That this order is entered pursuant to G.S.

15A-922 (c) based on the defendant's

objections to trial by citation. That the court,

in it’s discretion, directs that a warrant or

criminal summons issue as the new pleading

in this case to insure the defendant's

appearance and to insure that no charges are

brought against the defendant without a

review by an independent judicial Official.

Date - 08-02-2004

Michael E. Beale

Presiding Judge

App. 4

“APPENDIX B”

State of North Carolina In the General

County of Union Court of Justice

Superior Court

VS. Division

File No. 04CRS2855

04CRS2856

Kurt Siferd Kasler

defendant Order

This matter coming to be heard by the

undersigned Superior Court Judge, the

Honorable David Lee, at the August 30, 2004

session of Union County Criminal Superior

Court upon the defendant's motion.

It is hereby Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed

that the charges in file numbers 04-CRS-2855

and 04-CRS-2856 be dismissed for

insufficiency of the citation and that the State

is allowed to proceed with the charges in file

number 04-CRS-54317, a criminal summons

that was sworn before a magistrate on

August 17, 2004 by Officer Francisco Irizarry

App.5

as ordered to do so by the Honorable

Michael Beale.

This is the 27 day of September, 2004.

Honorable David Lee

Superior Court Judge Presiding

App. 6

“APPENDIX C”

State of North Carolina General Court of

County of Union Justice, Superior

Court Division

04-CVS-1626

Kurt Siferd Kasler ; Order >

Plaintiff

V.

Kevin Bridges, John Doe

Medlin, John Doe Miller,

John Doe Clough, and

F.L. Irizarry :

Defendant:

This cause coming on before the Honorable

W. David Lee, Judge Presiding at the

November 8, 2004 civil session of Union

County Superior Court upon motions to

dismiss of the Defendant Honorable Kevin

Bridges, by and through his attorney,

Assistant Attorney General David J.

Adinolfi, H, Defendants William Medlin and -

Joseph Clough, by and through their

_attorney, William L. Hill, Esq., and

App. 7

Defendant Francisco Irizarry, by and

through his attorney, Terry M. Sholar, Esq.

and the Plaintiff Kasler (“Kasler”) appearing

pro se.

And the Court having reviewed the record

and having heard the arguments of counsel

and of the pro se Plaintiff, and having

reviewed an identical complaint with name

changes, filed after oral argument without

leave to amend;

And it appearing that the complaint fails to

state a claim upon which relief can be

granted and should be dismissed as a matter

of law because (1) this court does not have

jurisdiction over the subject matter by reason

of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, (ii) as

to each Defendant, Plaintiff’s complaint fails

to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted; and (ii) the Honorable Kevin

Bridges is protected from suit by reason of

the doctrine of absolute immunity.

—.

App. 8

And it appearing that the complaint is

wholly without legitimate and lawful

purpose.

Now therefore it is Ordered that the

Defendants’ motions to dismiss are allowed.

It is further ordered that Defendant Bridges’

motion for sanctions is allowed and the

Plaintiff Kasler be, and he is hereby

permanently enjoined from refilling this

action. Or any modified version of this

action, in this or any other state court in the

State of North Carolina.

It is further ordered that the Plaintiff Kasler

be and he is hereby permanently enjoined

from filing any law suit, action, claim,

complaint, demand, motion, petition or other

public filing of any kind whatsoever in any

State public office within the State of North

Carolina without first (i) serving a copy of

the anticipated filing (s), together with a

copy of this Order upon the Senior Resident

Superior Court Judge of the county in which

Plaintiff seeks to file such document (s); and

App. 9

(ii) obtaining a written order from the Senior

Resident Superior Court Judge allowing the

filing of such document (s). This order shall

constitute an absolute bar to any and all such

filing by Plaintiff not done in strict

accordance with the express terms hereof.

This Order may also constitute grounds for

such further sanctions, including contempt,

that any court of competent jurisdiction may

determine to be appropriate with respect to

any filing (s) undertaken in violation of this

Order.

This the 24 day of November 2004.

W. David Lee, Presiding Judge

App. 10

“APPENDIX D”

Kurt Siferd Kasler In the General

Plaintiff, Court of Justice

Superior Court

vs. of Union County

Case No. 04 CVS 01626

Kevin Bridges, et al

Defendants, _ Notice of Appeal

Kurt Siferd Kasler, Plaintiff, hereinafter

Agegrieved Party, hereby gives Notice of

Appeal to the North Carolina Court of

Appeals, N.C.G.S. 1-272, N.C.G.S. 1-277 (a),

N.C.G.S. 7A-27 (d) (1) (3) (e), and Appellate

Rule 3 (a), of the Order dismissing

Aggrieved Party’s complaint and imposing

sanctions against the Aggrieved Party, dated

November 24, 2004, signed and filed of

record by presiding Judge W. David Lee in

the Superior Court of Union County, North

Carolina.

Submitted this 1st day of December, 2004.

Kurt Siferd Kasler, Plaintiff

App. 11

“ APPENDIX E”

No. COAP05-766

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Kurt Siferd Kasler From Union County

Petitioner, (04CVS1625)

V

Kevin Bridges, et al

Respondents,

KEEKRERAERKREREREREERRREEREERE

ORDER

The following order was entered:

The petition filed in this cause on the 16

day of August, 2005 and designated

“Petition for Writ of Certiorari” is denied.

By order of the Court this the 1+ day of

September, 2005.

The above order is therefore certified to the

Clerk of Superior Court of Union County.

App. 12

Witness my hand and official seal this the 1:

day of September, 2005.

John H. Connell

Clerk of North Carolina

Court of Appeals

App. 13

“APPENDIX F”

Supreme Court of North Carolina

9 November 2005

Mr. Kurt Siferd Kasler From NC Court .

of Appeals

(COAP05-766)

Re: Kasler v Bridges - No. 520P05

Dear Mr. Kasler:

The following order has been entered

on the motion filed on the 14 day of

September 2005 by Plaintiff for “Petition to

Certify the Cause for Discretionary Review”:

“Motion Denied by order of the Court in

conference this the 34 day of November

2005.

s/Newby,J., For the Court”

’ Christie Speir Cameron,

Clerk of Supreme Court

Shaula A. Brannan,

Assistant Clerk